Travis Hirman
11/03/11
Trees are generally a good thing. They provide us with air to breathe and wood to turn into useful products. Another benefit they have to humans is there aesthetic value. We like to see them in our daily lives; their color can brighten a dull landscape and make us happy. I think that everyone needs to live around trees and see them every day, but there comes a point when tree placement becomes poor. Planting trees in an urban setting is something that needs to be reconsidered. I don’t mean that no trees should be planted in cities, but there becomes a point when tree location becomes reckless. Specifically, I am talking about trees that are planted alongside city streets in a patch of dirt on a sidewalk. Many cities plant trees in this fashion, and the plot of land used is usually two to three foot wide squares. Large trees have roots that spread out about as wide as the crown is, and they run at or near the surface of the ground. Once a tree grows past its small piece of soil it is given, it runs into concrete. The growth of the roots often cracks and pushes up sidewalks and streets. This damage incurs unnecessary costs to the city, and if left unrepaired can be a hindrance or even a hazard to citizens. Trees planted in other areas of a city are a better plan. Parks allow trees to grow in an urban setting without inhibiting root growth. When trees get planted in confined spaces, it poses a huge detriment to their health. Life spans for city grown trees are typically only ten years. Personally, I don’t think that there is much of a point in planting a tree when it is going to live in poor condition and die well before it would naturally. The cost of planting and maintenance outweighs the benefits that they provide. Trees can be planted in cities without seriously reducing their life span. The trees in my yard at home were planted over twenty years ago and they are still doing fine. If there is no other option for the location of trees, other plants could go in their place. Shrubs and flowers can provide the same aesthetic value as trees, and are much more viable options.
3 comments:
I have the same opinion that you do Travis. It is a waste of time and money to plant those trees that will need to be removed in a few years. Flowers and smaller shrubs will work great along a sidewalk. You can't please everyone though, and I'm sure some people would demand to have trees placed also. They are probably the same people who would complain as soon as the sidewalk is destroyed. It’s a never ending cycle. But I guess in a way, you can look at it as a type of job security for those who plant, maintain, and remove the trees.
I sure do agree with you! Take a look at the maples just south of the library. It almost makes me cry to see them. Thanks for this post.
I do agree that the current practices associated with planting trees in urban areas is not very good I still think it is nice to have the trees around. Maybe it would be better to plant specific species that are adapted to live in areas with such little available soil or maybe plant trees on a smaller scale and give those trees more adequate space so they can grow to their full potential. I do agree that what it happening now isn't very good but I think that they shouldn't be gotten rid of completely, maybe a good mixture of trees and shrubs and flowers like Steph said would be a more appropriate way to tackle the aesthetics of urban environments.
Post a Comment