You must log in or register to comment.

Otto_Von_Bisquick t1_irwa6ns wrote

Actual TLDR; presence of tree cover is another corollary to redlining.

Tree cover reduces extreme heat impact, improves air quality, and provides aesthetic value.

Measures to undo the historical damage of redlining should be cognizant of this effect.


jabbadarth t1_irwbm9k wrote

I recently watched a short piece on tree cover in Phoenix. They showed the south which is much more industrial however still with residential where there are no trees and no greenspcaping at all being 10-15degrees hotter than the north where neighborhoods have grass lined sidewalks and trees dotted everywhere.

Literally 10 miles apart and the temperature changes double digit degrees on the same day just because of trees.


Charming_Wulf t1_irwj9cx wrote

Another thing to include with grocery stores, banks, and the dozen other intentional desertifications.

I will say one strange thing about Baltimore is the various groups that seem to hate trees. Some hate is illogical/uneducated, blind capitalism, or bizarre pettiness.

For illogical/uneducated, I would come across folks who were convinced that trees attracted rats. So they would actively complain about or damage trees. Yes, that sapling is attracting rats, not the alley blocked by garbage. Heck, there was that one homeowner in Pigtown that attempted to damage a tree on the sidewalk in front of his rowhome cause it dropped leaves and sap on his car. Same guy who wrote the racist/hate graffiti on his building wall facing a community garden.

Then you got BGE illegally destroying forest in Gwynns Falls/Linkin Park, with the city trying to shut down the case. BGE and DPW ripped out the trees on St Paul Street across from the Court House. They cut down the trees in anticipation of utility work that was canceled.

Or Pugh secretly cutting down a pine tree in Patterson Park for the City Hall Xmas tree. Even though every previous tree was from outside the city (I think outside the state usually). Just to what, save a couple dollars?


BJJBean t1_irwqrf0 wrote

Don't forget all the trees that got torn out in preparation for the Grand Prix. They literally tore trees out to turn our streets into a race track. Years later we now have no trees and a city filled with wildly dangerous drivers.


Charming_Wulf t1_irwr9h5 wrote

Totally forgot about that one. And a chunk of that was for putting in grand stands I think.


Significant_Jump_21 t1_irz9val wrote

That's a little crazy. BUT I can see being wary of trees in some places. The right tree in the right place is beautiful AND good for the environment. The wrong tree, or the wrong place can be a disaster. A group came through my neighborhood planting trees in front of people's houses, taking pics for their socials. They acted like when people go to 3rd world countries and give poor people something basic like a bottle of water. AND they treated us like we were all too stupid to know anything. I have trees in my backyard. We had a single tree removed from out front because the roots were getting into the sewer. Planting another tree out front isn't going to save the world. It just fucks up my plumbing.

One house near me has a white mulberry in the side yard. It drops branches and leaves in the gutter. The rats feast on the berries. It's a sticky mess. A native, noninvasive tree would be better.


Spare-Commercial8704 t1_is0lmb1 wrote

The guy in Pigtown also cut down a sycamore on the lot next door to him right before the beautification garden was installed and he then removed several hundred dollars of plantings from the garden on the night immediately following the installation.


Animanialmanac t1_is1ts9q wrote

Oh how sad, was that racially motivated or something else? Some people seem so mean these days.


MattDaCatt t1_irxj47t wrote

Title is wonky/click baity: Here's a synopsis

Lower income/redlined areas have little to no tree coverage, which can make a big difference in shade/temperature control/air quality. It's another small detail that makes a big difference in terms of quality of life.

The trees that have been planted tend to be one species (red maple) rather than a variety. This is bad because it means that any disease effecting maples will destroy all of the trees that were planted in that area; this indicates that the effort to plant trees in these areas needs more attention than just planting whatever is cheapest or easiest.

No one is saying that having trees is racist, but if you have a wide variety, then you likely live in a historically affluent neighborhood (which may have been racially motivated in the past)


Cunninghams_right t1_irzqmvc wrote

they actually keep track of tree varieties that are already planted and try to diversify. however, they do try to avoid pest resistant trees like Ginko, because supporting local bugs has become a cause celebre. the end result of planting pest-prone trees is seeing a bunch of dead maples and oaks all over the place that need re-planting again and again.


Xanny t1_irz3le6 wrote

Corollary, but I really feel like some of the sidwalk design in some parts of the city intentionally put trees in the way to make the area pedestrian unfriendly. This is more that the sidewalks were never wide enough to begin with, but if the sidewalk isn't wide enough having trees makes it so you literally cannot have two people walk past each other, and that is insane in a supposed urban environment.


Significant_Jump_21 t1_irzb2bv wrote

The city does sidewalk cuts to install tree pits without any pedestrian impact study. It's the lazy way to do it.


megalomike t1_irwefu5 wrote

some of the worst neighborhoods in baltimore were never red lined and have only been blighted since they were block busted in the 60s. the redlined neighborhoods in baltimore are almost all rowhouse neighborhoods in the city's interior, which doesn't have the space for a dense canopy. plenty of trees get planted in baltimore's poorest neighborhoods, redlined or otherwise. many people in the city consider trees to be a source of dirt and debris and don't want them.


Significant_Jump_21 t1_irzawpu wrote

Civil engineer here. I don't know why you're getting downvoted. Some neighborhoods weren't designed with space for trees. The city cuts out a square of concrete to plant a tree. Wilkens Av for example. The tree won't be healthy because it's not enough space for the roots. Not enough water. Unhealthy trees drop more leaves and branches. Dogs go to the bathroom. It smells bad. Sometimes the city does things half assed. Then it's worse than nothing at all. I don't blame people for not wanting a tree in that circumstance.


megalomike t1_is0ep80 wrote

hey man they killed jesus they can downvote me all day.


J_Sauce t1_irzbnw6 wrote

Downvoters have never seen a map of the redlined neighborhoods in Bmore. Short story: if you’re a Redditor in the city, the neighborhood you’re in was probably redlined. And many currently rundown parts of SW/W/NW Baltimore originally got the same Yellow loan rating as Hampden and Charles Village. Some even got Blue. The more you know. Source


Purple_Box3317 t1_irw3npl wrote

TLDR: trees are now racist…


jemr31 t1_irwdlnn wrote

TLDR is for when you read the article and then summarize it for others, not for you to only read the title and then come to your own stupid conclusion. Did you cause redlining? Have you ever been in charge of forestry for the city? No? Then why can't you entertain the idea that some parts of the city were treated worse than others?


Otto_Von_Bisquick t1_irwgqsj wrote

Hey, hey, hey now. You're assuming this is a smart person capable of change. This is the internet don't engage lest ye be dragged to their level.