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

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by lio45

You didn't need to lecture me on Yellow Birch....

I specifically said I wasn't being snarky.

There was no lecture.

I was doing my best to helpfully answer your question, and addressing the species you talked about.

You're welcome.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

That's a "neighborhood with big problems"? Looks great to me...

Also, after seeing your $700 oak, I'll update my opinion again to "a free tree would've grown to that size in the blink of an eye". Some of the saplings I planted yesterday (or so it feels) are already bigger than that.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

I specifically said I wasn't being snarky.

There was no lecture.

I was doing my best to helpfully answer your question, and addressing the species you talked about.

You're welcome.

Well, you didn't really fully answer my question, which was, is any of this a deal-breaker for the idea that it may be an elm? (I know #2 is not, but it still leaves (pun not intended) #1 and #3.)

1) has bark almost like a (eastern white) cedar's;
2) the leaves are similar to yellow birch and (Virginia) ironwood;
3) it did sprout leaves (not many, but a few) from a mature trunk. (Some trees do this - silver maple loves to, for example - and some don't)

If you do this then yeah: thanks!

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by lio45

Well, you didn't really fully answer my question, which was, is any of this a deal-breaker for the idea that it may be an elm? (I know #2 is not, but it still leaves (pun not intended) #1 and #3.)

1) has bark almost like a (eastern white) cedar's;
2) the leaves are similar to yellow birch and (Virginia) ironwood;
3) it did sprout leaves (not many, but a few) from a mature trunk. (Some trees do this - silver maple loves to, for example - and some don't)

If you do this then yeah: thanks!

If the bark peels in the way that Cedars do, its not an elm, or at least not a healthy one.

If its reddish hue, that could be red/slippery elm; but would not be white/American elm.

Its certainly possible you're looking at an elm, but pictures aside, I need to know why you think the bark looks like Cedar.

The slant on the elm leaf at its base is a very clear give away, you don't see than on Birch/Ironwood.

There some links above, but I can copy/paste some bark pictures, if it helps.

[LouisVanDerWright]

It's funny, I was just watching the city plant a tree at like 7AM out my bedroom window yesterday morning. It looked like something I hadn't seen before and sure enough I checked the tag and sure enough it's a Butternut tree which I don't think I've ever seen anywhere in the city. I'm extra excited because butternut is a wood I've used before including the ceiling of my cottage which is a 20' A-frame ceiling lined with butternut 6" tounge and groove.

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

It's funny, I was just watching the city plant a tree at like 7AM out my bedroom window yesterday morning. It looked like something I hadn't seen before and sure enough I checked the tag and sure enough it's a Butternut tree which I don't think I've ever seen anywhere in the city. I'm extra excited because butternut is a wood I've used before including the ceiling of my cottage which is a 20' A-frame ceiling lined with butternut 6" tounge and groove.

Butternut is highly endangered. Great to hear they are planting it! Hopefully a pure Butternut and ideally canker resistant!

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by lio45

That's a "neighborhood with big problems"? Looks great to me...

notice the latin king graffiti on the tree across the street? not all things are as they appear on the surface. 90% of people anywhere are good working class folks who want the same things as anyone else. it dosent take a large percentage to make life hell on a daily basis however. but its true, on certain days it really is a beautiful neighborhood. i wake up to distant roosters in the morning and catch the sounds of old mexican ballads, the jingling bells of paleta men, and the smells of carnitas wafting over on quiet evenings. which is why i fell in love with it and why im trying to do my small part to help uplift it. but on other days you can feel the stifling heaviness of the air and it takes on a different vibe. 35% of residents here live below poverty. our block is fortunate to be well shaded but going a 1/2 mile over it changes quite a bit:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8530...7i16384!8i8192

these streets simply become furnaces in the summer. you can see in that view that the city is finally getting around to installing a small place for a tree in the sidewalk, but thats likely the first time in over 120 years that house will have had a tree in front of it

Originally Posted by lio45

Also, after seeing your $700 oak, I'll update my opinion again to "a free tree would've grown to that size in the blink of an eye". Some of the saplings I planted yesterday (or so it feels) are already bigger than that.

it had a very hard winter and nearly died. we actually thought we would have to replace it as it still hadnt come back by mid june. however it has rebounded substantially in that time, but we did have to trim a lot of dead primary branches so its a bit bushier than it otherwise would have been (for time being). but its actually remarkable its come back as well as it has given its condition a couple months ago.

[Kenmore]

lost a couple nice trees on our block but luckily kenmore/winthrop still maintains nice tree cover despite being a firmly low income area

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

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).

Wow, pricey. I planted a 7' tall maple sapling I bought from Home Depot for $45 along with a Peach seedling at one of my properties this spring. I also planted a 3' Catalpa sapling I bought for $5 a few years back in my backyard. It flowered for the first time this year and is now taller than the garage.

Can we talk about how awesome Catalpas are for minute?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Kenmore

lost a couple nice trees on our block but luckily kenmore/winthrop still maintains nice tree cover despite being a firmly low income area

we lost 3 decently sized parkway ash trees in a row down the block from us last summer to emerald ash borer.

nothing has yet been replanted leaving a big gaping hole on that side of the street.

but like kenmore/winthrop, ravenswood gardens still has pretty decent tree cover in general. typical street: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9630...7i16384!8i8192


our old home in edgewater was on one of chicago's most beautiful "urban forest" streets (the 1400 block of W Elmdale):




i do love trees!

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

we lost 3 decently sized parkway ash trees in a row down the block from us last summer to emerald ash borer.

nothing has yet been replanted leaving a big gaping hole on that side of the street.

but like kenmore/winthrop, ravenswood gardens still has pretty decent tree cover in general. typical street: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9630...7i16384!8i8192


our old home in edgewater was on one of chicago's most beautiful "urban forest" streets (the 1400 block of W Elmdale):




i do love trees!

A shame on the Ash trees. We have 6 on the parkway around our house and the city has been innoculating them. So far, so good. All look very healthy and have tons of squirrel nests.

Completely agree on Edgewater, we lived there for 10 years before moving to Lincoln Square.

[Centropolis]

i remember years ago when i first started exploring chicago, i was in wonderment (and concerned) by the great tree cover...that seemed to be primarily one species. ash is not that common in st. louis anymore, and there are a lot of severely diseased specimens when i do come across them (usually in newer suburbs). sycamore, a whole gaggle of different oaks, locust (which dont seem healthy) and even lots of bald cypress (which thrive) are in my area. still too many bradford pear...even in very urban areas. surprising amount of southern magnolias as well, i just planted one last winter that is growing quickly.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

According to this:

https://www.businessinsider.com/citi...ngapore-293-18

Singapore is #2 in the world, after Tampa Bay (who knew?)

1. Tampa
2. Singapore
3. Oslo
4. Vancouver
5. Sydney
6. Montreal
7. Durban
8. Johannesburg
9. Sacramento
10. Frankfurt
11. Geneva
12. Amsterdam
13. Seattle
14. Toronto
15. Miami
16. Boston
17. Tel Aviv
18. Turin
19. L.A.

Hard to believe this list when LA is on it and a city like Atlanta isn't. LA has some neighborhoods with great tree coverage, but overall, I don't think of LA as being a great tree city. Of course trees here have to be watered until they are a big enough size to reach down to the water table, so that limits their presence quite a bit.

I'm torn, because while I love trees and the shade they provide, I know they aren't native to LA and our water resources are stretched thin and can only go so far. Some people here really want/expect the city to be forested as if it were in a location where it actually rained more than 4 months out of the year. LA's native vegetation is chaparral with larger trees located only around riparian areas. Trees will often line canyon floors because of the streams that tend to be located there. But looking at old photos of LA shows that the basin and valleys had few trees, and were mostly just grass/dirt and shrubs. The whole lush, tropical feeling that LA crafted its early image around was an artificial construct.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

If the bark peels in the way that Cedars do, its not an elm, or at least not a healthy one.

If its reddish hue, that could be red/slippery elm; but would not be white/American elm.

Its certainly possible you're looking at an elm, but pictures aside, I need to know why you think the bark looks like Cedar.

The slant on the elm leaf at its base is a very clear give away, you don't see than on Birch/Ironwood.

There some links above, but I can copy/paste some bark pictures, if it helps.

Yeah the slant at the base of the leaf is a very interesting and helpful criterion. Thanks

This tree is on a bit of my land that's on the other shore of the river that borders the main parcel, and earlier this summer I went there for the first time in years just to see what was there and I got very wet crossing over (which is why I didn't bring my phone; I was fine getting wet as it was a hot summer day), so I couldn't get pictures of that mystery tree. But now it's on my to-do list to go and have another look at it, whenever I can.

If it's not an elm, then it's got to be by far the biggest and oldest Ostrya of Virginia ("ironwood" 'round these parts) that I've ever seen... but then again, the leaf wasn't exactly what I was expecting, but there's variation too and it was pretty close.

The cedar-ish trunk is just from memory.

I don't recall touching it, I should have - I know for sure it's not a black ash but those are easily identified by how mellow/smooth their trunk is to the touch, so that can be one more clue.

[woodrow]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Can we talk about how awesome Catalpas are for minute?

Some people think they are awesome, some people hate them. Ask me which category I fall into and my answer with vary, depending on the time of year.

I have a 40+ foot Catalpa in my front yard and I do truly love it, but man it is a messy tree. This year in particular. There were a ridiculous number of pods this year and they fell for weeks! Then the flowers! Gorgeous, until the start raining down in soggy plentitude.

But the leaves! And the rococco shape of the tree itself. LOVE!

Also - this has been one of my favorite threads in a while. I am just such a huge tree fan. Grew up with a yard that had 4 Black Walnuts, 1 American Oak, 1 Pin Oak, 2 Maples, 1 Willow, 1 Bradford Pear, and....that's it I guess. Shubbery. Lots of shubbery.

One of the fundamentally great things about Chicago is the parkway system and the trees found in them. It is one of the pleasures of living in this city. The losses this past year have been alarming. The polar vortex was a monster.

A big part of why we haven't hit the million new tree mark is change in mayorship. That was Daley's baby. Rahm had different priorities and it remains to be seen what stock Lightfoot puts in the program.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by edale

Hard to believe this list when LA is on it and a city like Atlanta isn't. LA has some neighborhoods with great tree coverage, but overall, I don't think of LA as being a great tree city. Of course trees here have to be watered until they are a big enough size to reach down to the water table, so that limits their presence quite a bit.

I'm torn, because while I love trees and the shade they provide, I know they aren't native to LA and our water resources are stretched thin and can only go so far. Some people here really want/expect the city to be forested as if it were in a location where it actually rained more than 4 months out of the year. LA's native vegetation is chaparral with larger trees located only around riparian areas. Trees will often line canyon floors because of the streams that tend to be located there. But looking at old photos of LA shows that the basin and valleys had few trees, and were mostly just grass/dirt and shrubs. The whole lush, tropical feeling that LA crafted its early image around was an artificial construct.

It's wrong to say that trees are not native to LA. There are of course many trees that have been imported to LA, but there are many that are native to southern California, the oak being one of them. "Encino" and "Los Robles" have to do with oaks after all. In Pasadena/South Pasadena, some neighborhoods were built around already existing oaks.

This is interesting: https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/t...-brief-history

Olive trees also grow well in southern California's climate; they don't need a lot of water and can grow to provide a lot of shade. They somehow look native to the area, too, even though they are not.

[edale]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

It's wrong to say that trees are not native to LA. There are of course many trees that have been imported to LA, but there are many that are native to southern California, the oak being one of them. "Encino" and "Los Robles" have to do with oaks after all. In Pasadena/South Pasadena, some neighborhoods were built around already existing oaks.

This is interesting: https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/t...-brief-history

Olive trees also grow well in southern California's climate; they don't need a lot of water and can grow to provide a lot of shade. They somehow look native to the area, too, even though they are not.

Oh yes, I know there are native tree species in Southern California. Several types of Oak, Laurel Bay, Black Walnut, Western Sycamore are all native. I meant to say that these trees never created wide spread forests throughout the LA basin and valleys, but rather were just concentrated around stream beds, usually in and around the canyons. The notion that the whole LA basin should be a forest (which is what quite a few people advocate for) just isn't rooted in history or the native ecology of this region.

6th Street in Hancock Park has some of the best tree coverage in LA that I've seen, and it really does create a pleasant environment: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0635...7i16384!8i8192.

But it's not natural, and those trees (plus all the lawns in Hancock Park) rely on extensive irrigation. It just doesn't seem very sustainable to plant trees like that all throughout the city and region. If people want to live in a forested city, they should move east of the Mississippi or the PNW.

[Kenmore]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Can we talk about how awesome Catalpas are for minute?

another good take

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by woodrow

Also - this has been one of my favorite threads in a while. I am just such a huge tree fan. Grew up with a yard that had 4 Black Walnuts, 1 American Oak, 1 Pin Oak, 2 Maples, 1 Willow, 1 Bradford Pear, and....that's it I guess. Shubbery. Lots of shubbery.

I love urban greenery, I love the ways that people will shoehorn greenery into urban settings, and I love threads that talk about it.

I live in an area where any piece of unattended land will reforest itself with remarkable speed. I'm also fortunate to live in a city where the residents are not content until they have achieved reforestation of their lots. About the only places where you find big, sprawling areas of grass around here are in the new developments in the suburbs. For the most part, pretty much all the historic residential areas in town are in the shade. Trees, bushes, flowers... They all add so much to a city.

Even in the biggest cities, whenever you see people trying to add greenery to their spaces, you can tell that they care about where they live and they want to make it more pleasant. That was one of the things that struck me about Tokyo, for example. You'd walk by apartments that had balconies barely big enough for two people to stand on at the same time, and the residents had given half of it over to a tiny bamboo garden and a fountain. You'd see tiny little gardens on tiny scraps of ground in between buildings... pretty much every place that someone could plant something, someone had. Cities just feel better to be in when you can see that people love the city and care about it -- and nothing says care and love like well-tended plants.

[Via Chicago]

my next goal is ripping out all that grass and seeding it with native prairie flowers/grasses. my only fear is the city claiming theyre weeds and slapping me with fines (which sadly is not without precedent)