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

[Via Chicago]

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

Trees can play a huge role in the health of people living in cities, but across the country, cities are losing millions of trees year after year. And many poor urban neighborhoods — often home to a city's most vulnerable — are starting at a disadvantage.

"If we show you a map of tree canopy in virtually any city in America, we're also showing you a map of income," says Jad Daley, president and CEO of the nonprofit American Forests. "And in many cases we're showing you a map of race and ethnicity."

That lack of tree cover can make a neighborhood hotter, and a joint investigation by NPR and the University of Maryland's Howard Center for Investigative Journalism found just that: Low-income areas in dozens of major U.S. cities are more likely to be hotter than their wealthier counterparts, and those areas are disproportionately communities of color.

"If you live in an area in cities that is seeing more extreme heat days, but you don't have tree cover to cool down your neighborhood, that can literally be a life or death issue," says Daley. "The folks who are least likely to have air conditioning to weather heat waves, the folks who are most likely to have preexisting health conditions that put them at greater risk from those heat waves, aren't getting the benefits of trees."

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).

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

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.

[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).

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

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).

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.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by JManc

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)

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

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.

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.

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).

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.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

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 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

[lio45]

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

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

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by lio45

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

You get what you pay for. These arent dinky Home Depot specials that were cared for by some stoner on his summer break. They came from a top notch nursery in Wisconsin and took a guy a full day to drive them down on a truck, dig the hole and install them. They were already 15 feet tall when they went in the ground and are good specimens, fully pruned. Sure you can plant a tiny sapling for basically nothing, the odds it will actually grow to maturity are also slim. If you want to come up to Chicago and undercut the local competition though you're more than welcome but you might want to look at what root balls of that size for oaks cost first. (PS it's the same amount of money it costs the city to put a tree in)

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Sure you can plant a tiny sapling for basically nothing, the odds it will actually grow to maturity are also slim.

Is there a Chicago-specific reason why that's the case...?

I usually do the landscaping myself on my properties, I've transplanted free saplings (from other properties) plenty of times, never lost a single one, be it maples, oaks, or ashes (before EAB). If it's at the property where you live then the chances go from ~95% to basically 100% as you're there every day to watch it.

Doesn't take that long for a tree that's in full sun to go from a tiny sapling to a nice size. Sure, you have to be a bit more patient, but then it's free. Decades from now, when the tree is mature, whether it started with a free sapling or a $1,000 15-ft-tall tree will be irrelevant. Some of the ones I planted are 15+ ft tall already, and it seems to me it was yesterday I planted them.

Anyway, congrats for your civic mind, it's really nice that there are people out there willing to do what you did.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by lio45

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

That's what I'm saying when I can go walk in the woods and go find one or a hundred for free. That's how I am getting the 2-3 I will be planting for my front and back yard, there is a green trail at the end of my street with saplings that I will dig up and re-plant. They must be pretty big trees for 1400 fucking dollars. I know full size or nearly full sized are in the tens of thousands.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by JManc

That's what I'm saying when I can go walk in the woods and go find one or a hundred for free. That's how I am getting the 2-3 I will be planting for my front and back yard, there is a green trail at the end of my street with saplings that I will dig up and re-plant. They must be pretty big trees for 1400 fucking dollars. I know full size or nearly full sized are in the tens of thousands.

One nice aspect of this (getting them for free out there) is that you can often know the genetics of your saplings just as well as if they came from a nursery... if that tree is the only one of its species in the immediate vicinity and they're growing in the grass you're about to mow.

I have a massive oak on the front lawn of an early 1870s property so it's nearing 150 years old and still in great health, it gave me a few saplings already for planting at other properties. The neighbors of that one property all have maples, so I know the tiny oaks growing under it can't be anything but its progeny.

[xzmattzx]

I guess I'm 5 pages late, but it makes sense that richer areas have more trees than poorer areas. Richer people can afford to waste space (depending on your point of view) on a tree. Poorer people need to make more use of limited space.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Kenmore]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Can we talk about how awesome Catalpas are for minute?

another good take

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

lush tree cover is common in wealthy lakefront neighborhoods, and decimated in outlying areas.

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.

Originally Posted by Northern Light

Does Chicago have an active program for tree planting?

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

[Via Chicago]

case in point

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

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

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

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

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

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

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

Originally Posted by Northern Light

Interesting link here shows Chicago tree canopy by neighbourhood.

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

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