Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila
I like the trees, so I'm playing devil's advocate here... True leadership cities like Paris are adding trees wherever and whenever they can, including turning the Champs-Elysee into a forest...
It's not necessarily that trees are bad, but are they appropriate for the main street of the 78? That picture you posted is a beautiful street, but it's a residential street. A street lined with shops and office buildings is a different animal - the shops want visibility, especially from motorists who won't see a new cafe or shop if it's hidden behind tree trunks (easier to notice these things as a pedestrian, of course). Office buildings want visibility too, that's why corporations spend all that money slapping their logo at the roofline. Bus riders want to see when their bus is approaching. In the wintertime, leafless trees can be ugly and uninviting, and kill what little solar access we get during those months. Etc etc.
|
that picture is of mexico city, one of the densest places on the planet. its no more "residential" than the 78, which is to say its a mix of mid/high rises, abundant street facing retail, and all manner of transportation.
https://www.google.com/maps/@19.4182...7i16384!8i8192
somehow people still manage to figure out when to get off the bus. yes climate plays no small role, but thats not an excuse for Chicago to continue to fall into its old default way of doing things and to not leverage its own native vegetation in abundance. we are talking about the supposed "city in a garden" are we not?
saying "we should have a lifeless moonscape at the street level because otherwise pedestrians wont be able to see the gaudy corporate signage at the top of skyscrapers" is...a philosophy i dont think any sane person subscribes to