Street trees in urban environments

[emathias]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

...
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.
...

WHAT!? Which hipster bar was this?

[eschaton]

I never meant to imply that trees are 100% absent from European streets. I most cases though they are either found along wide boulevards/avenues (e.g., Paris's famous tree-lined streets), or in newer, more "soft urban" neighborhoods. There certainly is no broad association with street tree canopy coverage and neighborhood wealth/desirability such as is the case for U.S. cities.

I simply believe that the typology of all old urban neighborhoods was not set up for tree canopies on the street. I understand that there are great benefits to having trees in an urban area, but most of these can be achieved by having trees in backyards or semi-private courtyards as well. And I do agree if you let the trees grow tall enough, the "claustrophobic" element will lessen - although this can easily take decades

In most U.S. contexts though, street trees are a great idea, I admit. Probably over 95% of urban streets nationwide would be improved by them.

[lzppjb]

Congress Avenue in downtown Austin.


http://customaerialimages.com/blog/

I really enjoy it at night with the lights in the trees.


http://robgreebon.photoshelter.com

[mhays]

By claustrophobic do you mean cozy, comfortable, less windy, shaded....?

[Kenmore]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

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

my block looks very similar and i love it as well.

https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=41.9...57.41,,0,-2.25

[streetscaper]

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.

I am in total agreement with you.. narrow urban street with tall non-detached buildings (especially with nice architecture) look better without trees than with trees

[streetscaper]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I never meant to imply that trees are 100% absent from European streets. I most cases though they are either found along wide boulevards/avenues (e.g., Paris's famous tree-lined streets), or in newer, more "soft urban" neighborhoods. There certainly is no broad association with street tree canopy coverage and neighborhood wealth/desirability such as is the case for U.S. cities.

I simply believe that the typology of all old urban neighborhoods was not set up for tree canopies on the street. I understand that there are great benefits to having trees in an urban area, but most of these can be achieved by having trees in backyards or semi-private courtyards as well. And I do agree if you let the trees grow tall enough, the "claustrophobic" element will lessen - although this can easily take decades

In most U.S. contexts though, street trees are a great idea, I admit. Probably over 95% of urban streets nationwide would be improved by them.

Totally agree again

[streetscaper]

dble post

[nei]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I never meant to imply that trees are 100% absent from European streets. I most cases though they are either found along wide boulevards/avenues (e.g., Paris's famous tree-lined streets), or in newer, more "soft urban" neighborhoods. There certainly is no broad association with street tree canopy coverage and neighborhood wealth/desirability such as is the case for U.S. cities.

I guess it depends on what you define as "soft urban". it looks they're common on residential streets outside the old city but still rather urban. They're usually not narrow streets, though.

I simply believe that the typology of all old urban neighborhoods was not set up for tree canopies on the street. I understand that there are great benefits to having trees in an urban area, but most of these can be achieved by having trees in backyards or semi-private courtyards as well. And I do agree if you let the trees grow tall enough, the "claustrophobic" element will lessen - although this can easily take decades

I agree they can clash a bit. But I don't really mind the "claustrophobic" effect and it's nice that have some variety that just nothing but buildings, which can look too omuch.

[nei]

For example, this narrow Philadelphia street is much improved over one without. And cozier. Many without them look rather stark

[Kenmore]

Originally Posted by nei

For example, this narrow Philadelphia street is much improved over one without. And cozier. Many without them look rather stark

the former is real sweet

[brian_b]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i guess that makes me a tree person. and after 7 years of living among the treeless concrete and steel canyons of downtown 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.

Indiana Ave from Roosevelt to Cermak is easily the best tree-lined street in ~downtown Chicago.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8657...BFJu6KZrtQ!2e0

Prairie Ave from 18th to Cullerton is also wonderful, but too short.

[memph]

I'd say it depends, but a lot of the time the streets with trees are those that have enough space not dedicated to cars to have trees, and the ones that don't have narrow sidewalks crammed between zero setback building facades and on-street parking.

The side streets of Paris and Budapest's core can be somewhat stark compared to tree lined side streets (ex much of Berlin, which has wider ROWs). The often even narrower streets in old city centres and small towns/cities that also lack trees can feel pretty welcoming when they are either woonerfs (sometimes unofficial woonerfs) or pedestrian streets too though.

Also if you're going to have tightly packed buildings with no street trees, it's not necessarily a problem if you have a lot of small parks, squares, ramblas or tree lined boulevards every couple blocks. Rooftop terraces can help too

[memph]

Nice looking tree lined streets from Spain.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Bar...b0fb3d4f47660a
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Zar...df13f1158489a8

Examples of what Wendell Cox would call "mindlessly dedicating large amounts of space to pedestrians and intensifying traffic and exhaust pollution". The first is in a "suburb" typical of the density of most of the inland part of Barcelona's metro area that Cox painted with a single brush as "Orange County style suburbia".
https://www.google.ca/maps/@41.56475...kcp-njPhXg!2e0
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Val...a351011f7f1d39
https://www.google.ca/maps/@41.64613...tXcsi6Bt1g!2e0

No trees, still looks fine imo
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Zar...df13f1158489a8

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by nei

I guess it depends on what you define as "soft urban". it looks they're common on residential streets outside the old city but still rather urban. They're usually not narrow streets, though.

I would call that soft urban. Not so much because of the width of the street, but because the apartment buildings are also set back from the street. The apartments are not meant to be "on display" so blocking them with trees isn't a huge issue.

Originally Posted by nei

For example, this narrow Philadelphia street is much improved over one without. And cozier. Many without them look rather stark

I see what you mean here. I think the first example, it works because Federalist/Georgian rowhouses are very unadorned overall, so not much is missed if they are under partial cover.

The Port Richmond example is a much later architectural style (most of the neighborhood was built out around 1900), but still relatively unadorned, albeit with a few innovations (stone lintels, decorative brickwork near the roof-line, etc). Still, as most blocks (which haven't been remuddled in part) are essentially identical copies of one house design, it gets monotonous. Trees would help break it up and make it more interesting. Then again, so would window planters, painted shutters (real please), and smaller potted trees on people's sidewalks. Where feasible, you could always integrate "tree alleys" as well.

[hipster duck]

Street trees are somewhat overrated.

I appreciate them on residential sidestreets, but on commercial main streets, they distract from the architecture of the surrounding buildings and take away from that feeling of hustle and bustle. They're also not cheap to maintain. Northern cities have the added disadvantage that trees cast a long shadow during the winter months when you want as much sun on the sidewalk as possible. They also need to be pretty salt hardy and, in the fall, when the dead leaves mix with rainwater into a gritty mulch, they can often be a nuisance to pedestrians and, especially, bicyclists.

[memph]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Street trees are somewhat overrated.

I appreciate them on residential sidestreets, but on commercial main streets, they distract from the architecture of the surrounding buildings and take away from that feeling of hustle and bustle. They're also not cheap to maintain. Northern cities have the added disadvantage that trees cast a long shadow during the winter months when you want as much sun on the sidewalk as possible. They also need to be pretty salt hardy and, in the fall, when the dead leaves mix with rainwater into a gritty mulch, they can often be a nuisance to pedestrians and, especially, bicyclists.

I thought the idea was to use deciduous trees so that without the leaves, they don't block the sun much in the winter.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by memph

I thought the idea was to use deciduous trees so that without the leaves, they don't block the sun much in the winter.

Though to be honest, it's really nice being under a canopy of pine needles in cold weather. Yeah, you don't get sunlight, but you get sheltered from the wind really, really well. Pines can hold a lot of snow in their branches as well, which in some cases can make patches of the ground around them totally bare even in the winter time.

[nei]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I would call that soft urban. Not so much because of the width of the street, but because the apartment buildings are also set back from the street. The apartments are not meant to be "on display" so blocking them with trees isn't a huge issue.

I don't think blocking from view is much of an issue, though yes, it does remove the overall view of the street. Nice greenery can go well with nice architecture, for example this Park Slope street is as nice looking as any "old urban street" though not particularly narrow in width. Many people aren't interested in viewing just buildings, the trees make a good match and add interest. Seeing a wall of brownstone is nice as a sight, overall having trees is more pleasant, especially for residents. If it were narrower, I could see there being too many trees, I think the amount in that Center City Philadelphia street would be a good combination.

Still, as most blocks (which haven't been remuddled in part) are essentially identical copies of one house design, it gets monotonous. Trees would help break it up and make it more interesting. Then again, so would window planters, painted shutters (real please), and smaller potted trees on people's sidewalks. Where feasible, you could always integrate "tree alleys" as well.

I think part of our difference in perspective is that I feel more comfortable with some greenery around, particularly trees. The other decoration suggestions would be an improvement, but not quite the same. I found that North End "tree alley" from a random exploration, I really loved that little courtyard. A whole maze of those (mixed with the more typical rather treeless narrow North End streets) would be an ideal center city neighborhood to me. There's another "parklet" though different in style here Here's a photo I took of it:

[FREKI]

I like street trees, but in older cities where streets were not made for cars there's a limit for how much you can cram in between buildings and in such a case I priotize sidewalks, bike parths, parking and roads above trees.. ( people in search of green can always go to parks )


My municipal is currently undergoing a project where it's planting 100.000 new trees in the city - not the easiest task in an already fairly green city, but so far it's coming along nicely.. ( about 20% of these will be street trees - the rest around squares, parks, canals and such )