top | item 19868528

(no title)

bryan11 | 6 years ago

Frequently, the first step when building in the US is to rip down any existing trees and completely clear the property

discuss

order

Raphmedia|6 years ago

They recently did that in my area (rural/suburbs in Canada).

They cleared a huge section of old-growth forest to make a big community area covered with grass.

Instead of keeping some trees aside or not clearing the whole thing, they planted new young sapling all around the pedestrian paths and bicycle lanes.

Everyone is complaining about the lack of shade in that area (so big it feels like you are standing in the middle of a plain) and the city's answer is: "Sorry, we planted trees but they won't be big enough to cast shade for years. Just be patient."

It feels ridiculous because the whole area is surrounded by forest.

holy_city|6 years ago

And then the trees will grow with the branches overhanging streets, powerlines, and homes - prompting the city/power utility to trim them. But naturally they won't hire arborists to do it.

The city of LA did that in my neighborhood last year. My street might as well have no trees at all.

freedomben|6 years ago

This is likely regional dependent. In Alaska and Western Washington this is definitely true. When my neighbor built his house they tore down the forest.

In Utah tho where trees are harder to grow and establish, the construction company will often ask you, or just leave mature trees where they are as long as they aren't blocking the house.

zymhan|6 years ago

Yeah there definitely need to be local restrictions on this when trees are more sparse. Atlanta requires approval and paying a fee to cut down trees on a lot, but some argue the cost is still too low to discourage it.

m463|6 years ago

It's kind of sad. Reminds me of the (several) cartoons I saw as a kid where the bulldozers come and conquer the forest.