urbanMSP

Higher density = more trees saved. Not the other way around.

I like this thread because every time I see it I imagine Desiigner singing, "I got trees in Atlanta."

Higher density = more trees saved. Not the other way around.

Okay, I really want to believe this. Please expand on this thought.

Higher density = more trees saved. Not the other way around.

Okay, I really want to believe this. Please expand on this thought.

The more people/businesses we can house in already-existing urban/(suburban) areas through greater density, the fewer forests, wetlands, farmland (which means natural areas elsewhere will get converted to farmland), ect get paved over in place like Farmington for those same people/businesses.

Of course, if you were to rip out a bunch of trees in an area to add only a little bit more density, you could lose more trees than were saved by preventing suburban sprawl.

But that would be because you didn't add *enough* density, not because you *added* density.

Okay, so in order to experience the trees that are saved, people have to go outside the city?

Okay, so in order to experience the trees that are saved, people have to go outside the city?

The majority of preservation from increased density is from prevention of distant greenfield development. You can also visit the improved local parks that are supported by increased density if you can't make it out further. In the case of Minneapolis, we have an extensive park system that is fairly easily accessible from basically anywhere in the city. If you need a green fix, go there.

How about if government started giving away points for every tree a citizen plants ? which could be redeemable at any place to buy grocery may be.

How about if government started giving away points for every tree a citizen plants ? which could be redeemable at any place to buy grocery may be.

This is a noble sentiment, but I think the whole point of this thread is that as density increases there is less area available which is suitable for trees and other vegetation. I've personally seen quite a few large trees cut down to make way for apartment buildings. So I'm posing the question of what makes this tradeoff worthwhile.

So far what we've got is "preserve distant greenfields" and "we've got parks for that", with an implied boost to the park system coming from having more people around.

To elucidate on that implication, more density means less infrastructure/service costs per capita, which allows us to spend more on priorities like parks.

St Paul has a $50+ million maintenance backlog in their park system, and yet their parks are considered better than many other cities. If St Paul allowed more density like Minneapolis does, St Paul's parks could be far more comparable in quality to minneapolis'.

Instead we have situations such as the park in St Paul near where I grew up: a Rec center allowed to age and depreciate until they tore it down, replacing it with only a bathroom.

https://twitter.com/ajc/status/16252912 ... FmIR8XlJtA

MARTA continues to disappoint. They promised rail in many corridors for years, and now aregoing to go with BRT. The Atlanta metro has the population to support rail projects, this seriously is a joke.

Marta was hobbled from the start. Atlanta regional planning is really, really dysfunctional

Its too bad. I rode MARTA last week and with traffic in that town it is seriously a time saver.

Apparently it will be dedicated guideway BRT, but I can see them screwing that up as well.