Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
Another variant monoculturist view is the idea that more green space everywhere is always better, as if the ideal is to live in the woods and the city is always a kind of compromise.
|
I think there’s a misunderstanding as to why green space is added to urban areas. Whenever new green space is added to an ongoing development, you see it denounced as bad judgement on the part of a landscape architect or as part of some greenie plot.
Really, the reasons are much more practical. The newly planted sedges along South Park st. strike me as more of a storm water management project than anything. Trees are more about shielding pedestrians from the urban heat island effect than air quality. In fact, if the forested canopy of a street is too dense it actually worsens local air quality because it prevents emissions from dissipating.
Simply describing green space as “eco-friendly” or “beautiful” excludes a lot from the picture, but those reasons are probably used because they’re more popular with the public. I’m sure the housing market could speak to that as well, since properties in “greener” urban areas tend to be worth more.