Zfusco OP t1_iu0yj1p wrote
Reply to comment by PhillyAccount in It's an absolute shame how common and easy it is for developers to take down huge old growth trees in the city. by Zfusco
Can't think of a worse take. The house they knocked over to build on the lot that held the one I saw come down today was built in the fifties. This tree was taller than my 4 story home, the tree was 100% there before that house was, and would probably have been there when these become dated and get bulldozed in another 80 years.
Neighborhoods with fewer trees are uglier, hotter, have worse drainage problems in the soil, etc. etc.
The tree was on the edge of the lot, totally healthy. There was 0 reason to tear it down other than having to potentially do maintenance in the future, and a developer not wanting to have to deal with a large tree on shared HOA property.
It was almost certainly a heritage tree, but everyone knows the city doesn't give a shit about that.
PhillyAccount t1_iu147mw wrote
>having to potentially do maintenance in the future, and a developer not wanting to have to deal with a large tree on shared HOA property.
You named two potential reasons right there. There's also the root system impacting potential utility lines and foundation, insurance, etc.
There is a bill that would apply new fees for removing trees that developers are supposed to pay if they don't save / replace trees on the lot.
Personally I think the whole premise is dumb as regulations against building in dense urban environments encourage greenfield development in exurban areas that require the clearing of forests, not to mention that auto-oriented development patterns objectively worse for the environment. Your objections seem to be around the fact that you like big trees in your neighborhood - fair, but that's just as selfish of a reason as the developer taking the tree down to make construction easier.
Zfusco OP t1_iu16edp wrote
> You named two potential reasons right there. There's also the root system impacting potential utility lines and foundation, insurance, etc.
Too bad? Don't buy an 800k new construction if 25$ a month of extra homeowners insurance is a problem.
> There's also the root system impacting potential utility lines and foundation, insurance, etc
And yet it's been fine for at least 70+ years.
That bill is a great step.
> Personally I think the whole premise is dumb as regulations against building in dense urban environments encourage greenfield development in exurban areas that require the clearing of forests
I'm not saying 0 trees should be taken down for construction under any circumstances, I'm saying that the city should heavily disincentivize removing trees that are not prohibiting the construction of anything. Taking down a tree because people buying expensive homes don't want to deal with maintenance is a garbage reason.
> not to mention that auto-oriented development patterns objectively worse for the environment
Without getting into the fact that there's absolutely enough housing, and we don't really need to build more, tearing down urban trees to prevent maintenance concerns is far from what's driving deforestation. Tearing down tree's to build more housing is also not the primary driver of deforestation, agriculture is.
> Your objections seem to be around the fact that you like big trees in your neighborhood - fair, but that's just as selfish of a reason as the developer taking the tree down to make construction easier.
That's pretty reductive. I specifically pointed out that it's better to leave them for several reasons, heat, drainage, the aesthetics, etc. If you want to reduce that to "you like them" then sure, I like tree's in the same way that I like eating and breathing.
ialwaysendupdeleting t1_iu5l7sq wrote
The sentiment on this sub is “no bro please just build more condos bro please just try it I swear it’ll make housing cheaper once all the 500k units are sold bro trust me please we just need to build mega complexes of 500 square foot boxes bro then everyone will have housing I promise”
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments