Street trees in urban environments

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by eschaton

It's also worth noting that street trees really aren't a thing in Europe on residential streets, even in the poshest areas.

I like the sense of enclosure and intimacy I feel in the Mexican War Streets and Allegheny West.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

rilly? I must have visited the wrong cities in Europe. Many streets were completely canopied with tree cover.

Could you provide some examples?

Prague? Nope.

Rome? Nope!

Copenhagen? Don't see them.

Amsterdam? Along the canals, but not the side streets.

Seriously though. My experience is they're just not common on narrow urban streets. Courtyards may be heavily forested though, particularly in northern Europe.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Could you provide some examples?

Prague? Nope.

Rome? Nope!

Copenhagen? Don't see them.

Amsterdam? Along the canals, but not the side streets.

Seriously though. My experience is they're just not common on narrow urban streets. Courtyards may be heavily forested though, particularly in northern Europe.

European cities have a better 'height of buildings' to 'width of street' ratio than even the rowhouse streets of East Coast US cities. The shade and enclosure provided by these taller buildings on narrower streets reduces the need for shade trees.

[fflint]

The older parts of Sacramento have a fantastic tree canopy:


source

Now, the parts of Sacramento with the great street trees are comparable in density and built form to streetcar suburbs--Victorians, Edwardians and Craftsman homes, 2-3 story apartment buildings, etc. Sacramento doesn't have narrow streets lined with rowhouses. San Francisco does, however, and this city generally has very few street trees relative to other US cities.

[nei]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Could you provide some examples?

Prague? Nope.

Rome? Nope!

Copenhagen? Don't see them.

Amsterdam? Along the canals, but not the side streets.

Seriously though. My experience is they're just not common on narrow urban streets. Courtyards may be heavily forested though, particularly in northern Europe.

Not in the oldest parts of the cities but in northern Europe, they're there.

Amsterdam:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Amste...,0,-11.12&z=15

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Amste...,,0,-8.09&z=15

Berlin:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Amste...,,0,-8.09&z=15

Could find more German examples

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Munic...117.09,,0,2.44

[Teakwood]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Could you provide some examples?

Prague? Nope.

Rome? Nope!

Copenhagen? Don't see them.

Amsterdam? Along the canals, but not the side streets.

Seriously though. My experience is they're just not common on narrow urban streets. Courtyards may be heavily forested though, particularly in northern Europe.

London: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lo...963a5addd52a99

Barcelona:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ba...b0fb3d4f47660a

Paris: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pa...0b82c3688c9460

Athens: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.9784...IXA5IujvyQ!2e0

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Could you provide some examples?

Prague? Nope.

Rome? Nope!

Copenhagen? Don't see them.

Amsterdam? Along the canals, but not the side streets.

Seriously though. My experience is they're just not common on narrow urban streets. Courtyards may be heavily forested though, particularly in northern Europe.

Rome has some nice street trees. You may not have been on those streets, though.

[chris08876]

Honorable reference to Atlanta. No city does trees better than Atlanta. Its a city under a canopy.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._SKYLINE_1.jpg

[MolsonExport]

Paris, Reims, Lille, Marseille, Aix en Provence, Avignon, Arles, Nimes (just for starters...and only for France, but this applies to the 20 or so other cities in Europe that I visited). Not every street, but more than I would see here in North America.

[Muji]

It's quite well documented that street trees in urban areas are incredibly valuable. Among other benefits, a dense, healthy tree canopy increases property values, mitigates air pollution, lowers cooling costs in nearby structures, improves traffic safety, and provides pedestrians with shade and rain protection during unpleasant weather. Plus, they are simply beautiful.

I have to agree with Munchitup that one of the most frustrating things about walking in Los Angeles is the lack of tree cover. Despite the common perception of our "perfect weather," for most of the year it can get very uncomfortable walking for even a few blocks without shade. In the few parts of the city that do have great tree canopies, like South Pasadena or USC's campus, the cooling effect is very noticeable on hotter days.

[Munchitup]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

Good Post.

LA is moving away from Ficus trees and in the Downtown area, we are seeing sycamores being planted instead, which i think are great street trees. I recall Paris having a nice urban forest and was mostly Sycamores (or a very similar tree)

I also love the Jacarandas that are planted all over the LA area. They turn purple and are beautiful, however, the flowers stain the sidewalks and are a sticky mess.

Yes I live on Del Mar, which is lined with Jacarandas. It is a beautiful, sticky disaster come springtime.

[fflint]

There are a ton of jacarandas on the UCLA campus. I had never seen them before--truly unique and beautiful.

[chris08876]

Orlando has some pretty good tree coverage. Its a unique place, especially with the numerous lakes. Palm trees just make everything look nice. Even if you're not on vacation, it just looks good. Although I know that feeling of how palm trees really don't do justice when it comes to shade. When its really hot, and glaring out, some nice oaks or even some evergreens would be a gift.

Jacksonville also is a city in a forest. Very sprawled area, and you can sometimes forget that its an actual city as it resembles a wooded forest (certain neighborhoods).

[mhays]

Originally Posted by eschaton

It's a rare opinion, but I think street trees can be overdone. They tend to be universally applied with a more = better logic, when there are some streetscapes they just don't work for.

In particular, I think narrow residential streets with zero setback really don't look good with street trees. I mean, they are fine when the street trees are small, but once they grow out they tend to obscure the buildings and result in a claustrophobic feeling. As an example, compare this to this. IMHO the no-trees, unobscured street just looks better.

The one with trees looks infinitely better.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by Larry King

Are they important? When has this been done well? When has it been done poorly?

I take it that you mean trees planted along the right away or in the median. Some of the posts have been more of a discussion of the general tree canopy of cities, which would be a different matter. A lot of cities have great tree canopies but not a lot of trees right along the street or in medians.

[AviationGuy]

Here are some examples of street trees in Houston. This isn't meant to represent the city canopy overall. While neighborhoods around the city have long had nice tree canopies, street treescaping has improved noticeably in the last decade or so.

This is a Google Streetview image from the med center area, showing recent landscaping of the median and side rights of way.

[IMG]Houston Street Trees 1 by dharper615, on Flickr[/IMG]

Source: Google Streetview: https://www.flickr.com/photos/404119...n/photostream/

This is a view along Sunset Blvd near Rice University. These are fairly old live oaks, which grow slowly and sometimes don't get really large until they're 100 years or more in age. They can spread greatly, but don't get very tall. They provide a nice canopy and are popular in southern cities.

[IMG]Houston Street Trees 2 by dharper615, on Flickr[/IMG]

Source: Google Streetview: https://www.flickr.com/photos/404119...n/photostream/

This is along Kirby Dr. which runs through River Oaks. The neighborhood itself has many tall and very old trees, but the median landscaping is relatively young, and so much better than just grass as it once was.

[IMG]Houston Street Trees 4 by dharper615, on Flickr[/IMG]

Source: Google Streetview: https://www.flickr.com/photos/404119...n/photostream/

This is in front of the River Oak Shopping Center, which has been present for many decades. I don't know how old the palms are. They don't look mature yet. Highland Village has similar palms along the street.

[IMG]Houston Street Trees 7 by dharper615, on Flickr[/IMG]

Source: Google Streetview: https://www.flickr.com/photos/404119...n/photostream/

Finally, this view is in a quiet residential and hotel area in the outskirts of Uptown, just on the other side of Loop 610 that defines the boundary of the inner city ("Inner Loop"). This landscaping is new.

[IMG]Houston Street Trees 6 by dharper615, on Flickr[/IMG]

Source: Google Streetview: https://www.flickr.com/photos/404119...n/photostream/

The above are just a few examples. The streetscaping is expanding to many areas of the city, including Downtown and Midtown, and many residential areas. Some of the Inner Loop boulevards have been treescaped for a long time, although improvements are currently being made.

To me, good treescaping or landscaping within a city is extremely important. It not only makes a city more attractive, but also has a positive effect on people as they drive, cycle, or whatever they do to move around (not that it can completely overcome people's bad moods in traffic!).

[James Bond Agent 007]

My absolute biggest pet peeve is when they plants trees that are going to get big RIGHT beneath power lines. I mean, you see a new development go in, and they plant, like, RED MAPLES right beneath the overhead lines. I mean ... DUH!!!! Red maples get, like, at least 50 feet tall, so you KNOW that in 10 or 20 years they're gonna start interfering with the power lines. This mistake must be made hundreds of thousands of times per year all over the US, and it is so utterly predictable, yet the dimwits who design these things think absolutely nothing of it and just mindlessly plant whatever they can find on a whim and don't give a crap.

I'm not sure who chooses the tree species in a new development, but I suspect the major culprit are the planners, who probably just look at the site plan, rubber stamp it and are too stupid to pay attention to something like that. You'd think either the real estate developer or the landscapers would have some awareness, but apparently not.

I would love to see a state give power companies the authority to sue local governments and real estate developers to recoup the cost of trimming trees that are interfering with power lines. They should also be given the authority to cut down trees that are really interfering with power lines without notice, and without having to replace them, and then be able to sue the local government and/or real estate developer (even if it's a 30-year-old development) to recoup the costs of cutting down trees.

Some of the incredibly stupid places I've seen developers plant trees, cannot be described.

[Wentworth]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Could you provide some examples?

Prague? Nope.

Rome? Nope!

Copenhagen? Don't see them.

Amsterdam? Along the canals, but not the side streets.

Seriously though. My experience is they're just not common on narrow urban streets. Courtyards may be heavily forested though, particularly in northern Europe.

If I zoom out on your Copenhagen example, there are plenty of street trees in that neighbourhood on adjacent streets, plus courtyard trees, and parks.

https://www.google.com/maps/@55.6743...!3m1!1e3?hl=en

Prague has fewer street trees but plenty of courtyard trees and lots of parks:
https://www.google.com/maps/@50.0774...!3m1!1e3?hl=en

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by eschaton

It's a rare opinion, but I think street trees can be overdone. They tend to be universally applied with a more = better logic, when there are some streetscapes they just don't work for.

In particular, I think narrow residential streets with zero setback really don't look good with street trees. I mean, they are fine when the street trees are small, but once they grow out they tend to obscure the buildings and result in a claustrophobic feeling. As an example, compare this to this. IMHO the no-trees, unobscured street just looks better.

If your problem is that trees are obscuring the buildings, then you just need to let them grow bigger:

http://goo.gl/maps/S0eTv

It's actually a legitimate problem. My understanding is that part of the reason most residential streets in Chicago are generally lined with trees while most commercial streets are not (despite having the exact same with, as in the Fullerton example above) is that businesses do not like being obscured by pesky vegetation. There was a section of Milwaukee Ave in Logan Square that used to be lined by nice, 30 year old, mature trees and they just cut half of them down so a new hipster bar could have an outdoor patio that isn't interrupted by trees.

Given the generous street widths here in Chicago, there is no reason why the trees should have a hard time growing on commercial streets, I think it's just a matter of businesses not wanting them around or wanting them to get too big.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by eschaton

As an example, compare this to this. IMHO the no-trees, unobscured street just looks better.

wow, i could not disagree with you more strongly. my opinion is a complete 180 from yours. in your examples, the former looks infinitely more cozy and inviting than the latter to me.

i guess that makes me a tree person. and after 7 years of living among the treeless concrete and steel canyons of downotown chicago, i now live in a neighborhood that is awash in trees and i love it. it's one of my favorite features of my new neighborhood. it's like living in an urban forest, and even with all of the greenspace and trees, my neighborhood still has a respectable density of ~35,000 ppsm.

here's my spectacularly tree-lined street in chicago's edgewater neighborhood: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9908...JFEdvfjSeg!2e0