Trees Are Key To Fighting Urban Heat — But Cities Keep Losing Them
 

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/04/75534...ep-losing-them

I find this absolutely to be the case in Chicago where lush tree cover is common in wealthy lakefront neighborhoods, and decimated in outlying areas (where it dosent pick up again until you hit well off western suburbs like Oak Park).

Were the areas in question laid out with fewer trees?

If not, is this simply a case of not replacing trees as they die?

Does Chicago have an active program for tree planting?

I agree that a good tree canopy is one element in a healthier, more attractive neighbourhood.

Toronto plants trees on people's front yards for free; while a tree for one's back yard is subsidized.

i don't know about that. we're ~3 miles from the lake and our neighborhood still has very nice tree cover in places that weren't savaged by asian longhorns/emerald ash borers.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9647...7i16384!8i8192


and here's a random street in hermosa, over 5 miles inland from the lake.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9193...7i16384!8i8192



generally speaking, chicago's residential side streets do pretty well with tree cover, but the various invasive tree-killing beetles over the past couple decades have been a true menace here, as they have in many other US cities.





yes, the city of chicago's bureau of forestry plants parkway trees for free for any property owner that requests them.

That's common everywhere. Trees might be ubiquitous but they also require maintenance and that can get pretty expensive. Plus, trees die and homeowners, absentee landlords simply don't replace them nor do they care to. It's not a priority.

I just knew that trees were racist!



Seriously though, is that cities aren't planting trees in poorer areas, or is it just that larger lot, more heavily forested areas tend to be more desirable?

In Toronto's case, there looks to be a bit of overlap between high tree coverage and high incomes:

https://www.corporateknights.com/wp-...reecanopy2.jpg
https://www.corporateknights.com/cha...0850-14405688/

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/...18/m003_en.gif
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/...8/m003-eng.htm



But there's also an inverse relationship with higher densities:

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...-the-study.png
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig1_304186957



As well as with industrial land uses: (purple on the map)

https://media.treehugger.com/assets/...crop-scale.jpg
https://www.treehugger.com/urban-des...en-zoning.html



And then there's also a relationship between the Italian population and lack of tree coverage (that whole big tree-less western corridor were the traditional Italian immigrant neighbourhoods - gotta chop down those trees for the backyard gardens!).

It has been noticed worldwide that rich neighborhoods have lots of trees and poor ones have few:
https://www.geographyrealm.com/gray-...visible-space/
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/...uality/390132/

its a complex question. many west and south side neighborhoods of Chicago were wealthy when they were developed in the late 19th century. id imagine (and looking at old photographs would probably bear this out) that they had lush tree cover (both new plantings as well as legacy old growth trees). the issue is these neighborhoods fell into disinvestment and poverty in the mid-late 20th century and much of this treecover was lost, due to disease/age/weather. it clearly has not been replenished at rates that would make a significant impact.

other areas like Pilsen or Chinatown never had significant tree cover (or traditional parkways/lawns) and as a result those more industrial communities are still very barren from a green standpoint. and the heat island impact is especially noticeable in the summer compared to other areas. the city has only very recently started new plantings in that area.

it does but it can take up to 3 years to get a tree. i actually went out and bought trees for my parkway and planted them myself (even though this is technically illegal, its kind of the least of the cities problems). the other issue is the city will not plant parkway trees unless a resident specifically requests one. they contest that the expense is high to plant a new tree and they dont want to put one where the residents dont want/wont care for it. so therefore the old tree canopy is lost and you wind up with many blocks that were once lush and are now entirely full sun without any shade whatsoever.

chicago had an ambitious goal of planting 1 million new trees 10 years ago but has not planted anywhere near that amount and as a result of disease/age/invasive species, the city has fewer trees today than it did a decade ago and continues to lose them.

sure but at least in this case, we're talking about parkways and parks, which are areas of the city that the government essentially has full control over. absentee landlords shouldnt impact whether a block has trees planted on it or not.

ive also seen a stigma around trees. i know for a fact my senile old grandmother poisoned a gorgeous 100+ year old tree in her neighbors yard because she thought it was responsible for flooding her basement or something. then my GF mentioned that some neighbors did the exact same thing to old growth trees that used to be in front of her house 20+ years ago. i can only imagine what these would have looked like today, as only 2 houses down is a still in-tact absolutely enormous and stately American Elm, while we're left with a sun parched lawn. the two trees i went ahead and planted myself on this parkway is my contribution to fixing that wrong, but it would have never happened if i myself didnt shell out 1400 bucks for some well raised nursery trees and labor to put them in (yes i could have waited 3 years for the city to maybe or maybe not put something down but didnt want to wait that long).

and this is just talking about residential side streets. dont even get me started on how badly the city fails at adding tree canopies to its arterial and commerical corridors.

case in point

and heres what fullerton looks like just to the north

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9244...7i16384!8i8192

id say thats a fairly typical Chicago arterial streetscape

I'm from NY and the I suspect the foliage is fairly similar to Chicago and if I remember, elm tree roots were pretty shallow and reeked havoc on sidewalks, basements and foundations so your gran's wrath might have had some merit. My gran bitched about her neighbors' tree heaving up the sidewalk. Plus, Dutch Elm Disease wiped out a lot of elm trees and many trees planted to replacement had much shorter lifespans.

i dont know if they were or werent elms, the block my GF lives on actually has a pretty diverse array of species. the stigma seems to be directed at mature old trees in general. i let the landlord who owns the building next door know i was putting some in and his response was "well ill be dead by the time they get big and cause problems so do whatever", which basically is focusing on perceived negatives than the well documented advantages mature trees provide (to say nothing of the fact that im probably boosting his property value some small percentage by adding a little bit of curb appeal next door).

also its pretty rich her neighbors would think the tree next door was causing the problem when their house is literally surrounded by nothing but cement. i wish i was making this up but yes they completely paved their back yard and are the only house on the block that has a concrete parkway out front. no grass or drainage of any sort. but sure lets blame this on the trees next door.

i even went through this battle with my parents. their block was a magical place growing up, all 100 year old trees and gorgeous canopies. i felt like i lived in a forest. over time they were lost one by one and now their block has a completely different feel to it. its no longer that magical place. on their property alone there were 4 old growth trees that provided really nice dappled shade and cooling. we never really had to run the A/C. all those came down. i tried to convince them even when i was a teenager to replace them but they were always apprehensive. i think i finally got through to them as theyve since planted a couple (even though theyre species that will never get as towering as the old oaks and ashes that we had)

Interesting link here shows Chicago tree canopy by neighbourhood.

https://www.atlasobscura.com/article...anopy-map-2017

yeah, the city is generally pretty terrible with street trees on commercial arterials in the neighborhoods.

some of the cutesy more upscale retail streets get them, like lincoln in my neighbrohood:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9672...7i16384!8i8192


but then one block over on auto-sewer western, pretty damn sparse:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9683...7i13312!8i6656





that's by suburban municipality, not city neighborhood. the city shows up as a single orange blob.

^ If those are the ornamental type trees (eg. lincoln), they typically only last 20 or so years and then have to be replaced.



Yeah, from what you describe, the flooding sounds like lack of drainage due to all the concrete. My aunt had that same problem. Her and her neighbor shared a driveway that abutted against both of their foundations and they both had basement issues on their respective sides of their houses.

Absolutely agreed about trees adding to curb appeal; I would never live in an area without significant tree cover which is one of the few thing I like about the stepford neighborhood I'm in. It's a suburb built in a forest but they built the houses around the trees and I have about a dozen or so on my property and one of them is about 200 years old. We had one cut down that was almost 250. I plan on planting a few more. I will be in my 90's or gone when they are big but who cares....

which is fine. at least they are there, and plentifully so.

on many (most?) commercial corridors in chicago, there's just nothing at all.

Thanks for the info!

First a point of clarification for myself, you and Dan have both been using the word 'parkway'. I assume you are meaning the space between the sidewalk and the curb??

In Toronto we call that the boulevard.

****

Toronto plants boulevards automatically, assuming they are green and not paved.

Toronto's front-lawn program is generally elective; but has been shifting to negative-option.

So the City looks at aerial photos for areas that are under-treed, then sends out staff to single out properties suitable for a tree.

They then sent a letter to the homeowner saying 'if you don't object by such and such a date, we will plant this type of tree on your front lawn'.

The backyard program is 100% elective, the land owners has to pursue it.

Commercial private property must plant trees during redevelopment; and in the past existing commercial property has been ignored.

Toronto is looking at negative option commercial property planting as well.


Wow, Toronto is generally six months, trees are selected for planting in fall, then planted in spring; or selected in spring for fall.

If you want a species that is a spring-only transplant (nut-bearing species tend to do much better w/spring transplants), then that might be up to 12 months.

In the long run, I think you want smaller more manageable trees, not something that will grow to be 200' feet and rip up/ impede the sidewalk.

right i think building around old trees was the common way to approach development at that time. the difference is today when any developer acquires a new parcel, their first instinct is to clearcut any trees on the property.

but really the city of Chicago is not helping matters and in a lot of cases contribute to this deforestation. heres a prime example:

https://www.npr.org/local/309/2019/0...-chicago-trees

in theory thats how it should work here but budget constraints mean it typically takes longer than that. due to these budget constraints, this is why they tend to prioritize people who "opt in" and say they want one. but ultimately this means less engaged/informed communities get left behind, and this contributes to the cycle of declining greenery in poor neighborhoods. your average person in poverty isnt thinking about trees or city greenery programs that more well off folks are taking advantage of, and its part of why i think the city should be more proactive at changing this strategy

Whaaaaaaat?!?!? This is PURE highway robbery! Almost unbelievable.