[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

Were the areas in question laid out with fewer trees?

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

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.

Does Chicago have an active program for tree planting?

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.

Originally Posted by JManc

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.

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).