Skip to main content

in reply to ECEC

@ECEC
Any city manager could tell you everything wrong with having trees downtown.
* Birds get into them and when they're nesting, they attack anybody walking by
*Birds also shit on the cars parked under them, and most drivers look for shade to park under
*Bugs get into them and attract birds when birds aren't nesting
*Trees drop sap, which also ruins a car's finish
*city workers have to spend time on the clock keeping the leaves picked up off the ground

Yeah, the drawback is that the algae don't provide shade.

@ECEC
in reply to Andres S

@Andres S @ECEC
Cars and trees in the inner city are a combination of problems.
I did leave one tree problem out: they grow.
When their roots are surrounded and covered by concrete, the concrete buckles. So do the streets. Unfortunately, city streets are specifically for cars.
in reply to Radio Free Trumpistan

*sigh*

City streets are _not_ specifically for cars. Freeways aren't even specifically for cars (buses, trucks), but city streets in particular are definitely not just for cars.

Tree roots are a solved problem. Lots of city master plans and similar documents have a list of trees allowed in the public right-of-way that have root systems compatible with sidewalks and roads. Some trees have roots that buckle concrete, others have roots that don't. Choose wisely.

in reply to Andres S

Trees were here first. Streets (pavement) are an attempt to tame the world. The arrogance of thinking we (humans) can & should assert our will over the world is the problem; street trees are a solution.
in reply to Rejin

@Rejin @Andres S @ECEC
...except they are not. What you're in favor of is no cities. Not gonna happen.
in reply to Radio Free Trumpistan

She said 'street trees', which are have shown clear benefits to dense cities all over the world. They're incompatible with on-street parking, though.
⇧