Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
Is the city forcing existing owners to build trees on their own lots? Mandating that developers put X amount of trees to would be a pretty easy thing to do.
|
They do mandate builders include trees. But when you replace a home that takes up 50 per cent of a property with a building that takes up 80+ per cent, you have much less space for trees. And trees take 30 years to grow to maturity. So higher-density redevelopment of properties with detached homes will often mean tearing out three mature trees and replacing them with one sapling.
That has a cost that goes beyond aesthetics.
Quote:
But trees offer more than just shade and autumn leaf-raking opportunities. They sequester air pollution and help fight climate change. They significantly reduce the “heat island” effect of large cities, thereby reducing the amount of energy used to regulate building temperatures. Trees mitigate the destructive effects of stormwater, provide wildlife habitats and serve as noise buffers in the cacophonous urban landscape. Research has demonstrated the positive effects of trees on psychological well-being and general health. They are also tools for urban design, increasing walkability and decreasing traffic speeds.
Trees are vital but underappreciated parts of any city, our living infrastructure.
A 2014 TD Economics study in Toronto found that every dollar invested in an urban forest sees a return of $1.35 to $3.25 in benefits and cost-savings, everything from stormwater management, air quality, energy savings and carbon sequestration. Think about that for a moment: not only are trees something everyone loves, they are a net fiscal gain.
https://www.avenuecalgary.com/city-l...-urban-forest/
|