Why Build With No Trees?
Monday, August 22, 2005 by joeKnowledge | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Richard Patterson for The New York Times
WHY???
I posted this on my blog as a responce to other posts:
And yet they keep on biulding them like this.
I understand part of the reason... trees roots grow in sewer lines... they break up sidewalks... they can also do other things that can be home owner nightmares (like falling on your house, getting fined for not taking care of the tree or distroying it)
There has to be a balance between the picture above and having some trees. I mean come on! With the housing market at its peak now, almost anyone can afford to add more sidewalk or more street (maybe even an island in the middle of the street for trees)
Face it: The best nieghborhoods to grow up in have trees. Period.
=======
So what do you think? Why does America make these blank statements of urban sprawl? I an't imagine being a kid growing up in that? No shade, no tag bases, no climbing, no nothing!!!!!
Its crazy! I am tired of it. I think I wanted to become an architect just to stop this crap.
One day, I am going to go back to school for Architecture (like when I am 55 or 60) and live my other dream once upon a time ago...
 |
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
NightTrainthedark
Reply #2 Monday, August 22, 2005 10:29 AM
Reply #2 Monday, August 22, 2005 10:29 AM
As a contractor I can pretty much guarantee it is not a design issue. It simply comes down to a cost issue. Trees cost money to purchase,plant,and maintain until they mature. The Developer that did that subdivision probably saved a milion dollars depending on the size of the development. 
Chasbo
Reply #3 Monday, August 22, 2005 10:33 AM
Reply #3 Monday, August 22, 2005 10:33 AM
Gimmie da trees!! Not only do they look good but are good for the air. If you place them properly they provide much needed shade and lower the temp in the house on hot days. Another thing that bothers me about these developments is how they put the garage in the front of the house. That is just plain ugly to me. I too grew up in a neighborhood with trees and alleys and CHARACTER! One more thing, around here, the new developments have really stupid names: Hidden Lakes - for chrisake the lake is a retention pond! The Willows of Shady Lane - I don't see any Willow trees! It reminds me of a Firesign Theatre skit where they talk about Rancho Malaria 
qrush
Reply #4 Monday, August 22, 2005 10:35 AM
Then the engineers hit you with the budget, and the architects shut up!
No, just kidding...I definitely think they should have trees, but out in the desert that's probably tough when they didn't cut through a forest to begin with to make the neighborhood. I'm sure the residents of said sururbia will plant some. Or at least I hope.
Reply #4 Monday, August 22, 2005 10:35 AM
| Its crazy! I am tired of it. I think I wanted to become an architect just to stop this crap. |
Then the engineers hit you with the budget, and the architects shut up!
No, just kidding...I definitely think they should have trees, but out in the desert that's probably tough when they didn't cut through a forest to begin with to make the neighborhood. I'm sure the residents of said sururbia will plant some. Or at least I hope.
_02
Reply #5 Monday, August 22, 2005 10:58 AM
Reply #5 Monday, August 22, 2005 10:58 AM
My Husband and I survey for a living. Where we live, trees that are cut down during boundry surveying on up to clearing the losts have to be replaced with others by law, if more than the alloted amount for that area have been cut down. There has also got to be an exact amount of trees in the buffer zones and in the front yards of each lot. That is accomplished by doing tree locating, which is a long tedious job if there are alot of trees. We also have to identify what type they are. That is done before anything else is. It is not done by all builders though. Most have us do the tree location because it is cheaper to pay us to count, locate and identify the trees than it is to go in and strip the land then have to pay the bigger bucks to replace them. As much a pain in the butt as it can be, I'm glad this state values the trees and cares about polution more than saving money. I guess the greedy builders go somewhere else. 
joeKnowledge
Reply #6 Monday, August 22, 2005 11:41 AM
Reply #6 Monday, August 22, 2005 11:41 AM
they saved a million?
But look at the result?
I just feel like... if your going to spend 10 million on it, spend another 5 on the trees.
One of my friends back in the day lived in one of those places in New Jersey and it sucked. I looked around and thought to myself (why would anybody want to come outside in this?
Think about it.
You buy the house like the picture above and then what? You live there? For years? With KIDS????
I WISH SOMEONE WOULD SAY: 'HEY LOOK AT THIS! WE ARE BUILDING WITH TREES!'
It just really bothers me. You could be making something people want and would pay for but you biuld a wide open space full of houses in the middle of nowhere.
The article talks about McMansions... but even estates have gardens and treet. some kind of foilage.
But look at the result?
I just feel like... if your going to spend 10 million on it, spend another 5 on the trees.
One of my friends back in the day lived in one of those places in New Jersey and it sucked. I looked around and thought to myself (why would anybody want to come outside in this?
Think about it.
You buy the house like the picture above and then what? You live there? For years? With KIDS????
I WISH SOMEONE WOULD SAY: 'HEY LOOK AT THIS! WE ARE BUILDING WITH TREES!'
It just really bothers me. You could be making something people want and would pay for but you biuld a wide open space full of houses in the middle of nowhere.
The article talks about McMansions... but even estates have gardens and treet. some kind of foilage.
NightTrainthedark
Reply #7 Monday, August 22, 2005 12:04 PM
Reply #7 Monday, August 22, 2005 12:04 PM
Town officials that allow this to happen probably have a financial interest that have nothing to do with taxes.
aufisch
Reply #8 Monday, August 22, 2005 3:46 PM
Reply #8 Monday, August 22, 2005 3:46 PM
I am with you with this one joeKnowledge, I even have a name for suburbs like that. "concrete getto"
GhoS
Reply #9 Monday, August 22, 2005 5:06 PM
Reply #9 Monday, August 22, 2005 5:06 PM
I totally agree that trees not only add character, but are important in many other ways. Of course some locations can't truly support trees. If they can't support trees then don't build the houses all the same. That annoys me a lot. I know it costs more to build them differently, but they look like cookie cutters. But maybe the price of those homes are cheap enough that someone buys them.
And ok so you have to build them all the same, but why then all the same COLOR?? Boring boring boring.
And ok so you have to build them all the same, but why then all the same COLOR?? Boring boring boring.
starkers
Reply #10 Monday, August 22, 2005 7:52 PM
Reply #10 Monday, August 22, 2005 7:52 PM
It's the same here in Oz....housing developers get a hold of a tract of bushland and bulldoze just about every tree on it for a higher percentage of bricks and mortar. Yes, it's a sad, sad thing that people find they must live in nature exclusion zones to have a roof over their heads.
I can look back to housing estates that began 20 and 30 years ago, where all the native trees were cleared, and to this day there are no trees of any significance on any of them...the local parks consisting of large chunks of concrete and steel, because, in their 'infinite wisdom', the developers felt nature hadn't provided an adequate playground for kids. Shoot! back when I was a boy, we had no monkey bars and park paraphanalia, it was a rope or two and the mother of invention to make the best of what was around....trees, lots of trees, nature in all its glory.
I feel sad for the kids of today, caught right in the middle of the incessant urban sprawl that marches right over the top of all in its way to make way for yet another housing estate, highrise, motorway, factory....
Some say it's progress, but is it? And at what cost? "Yes Billy, you can climb that tree, but be very careful of those power lines." Or "Yes Emma, you can play in the park, but don't go near that storm water drain because you'll get sucked into it."
I never had to cross 4, 6 or 8 lanes of traffic to get to school or the local shop, but that has increasingly become a hazard for the kids of today. Sure, some authorities have implemented laws to retain some trees and a bit of natural habitat, but quite simply, they don't go far enough, especially when we have so many endangered species, many on the verge of extinction, because of mankind's destruction of natural resources
I can look back to housing estates that began 20 and 30 years ago, where all the native trees were cleared, and to this day there are no trees of any significance on any of them...the local parks consisting of large chunks of concrete and steel, because, in their 'infinite wisdom', the developers felt nature hadn't provided an adequate playground for kids. Shoot! back when I was a boy, we had no monkey bars and park paraphanalia, it was a rope or two and the mother of invention to make the best of what was around....trees, lots of trees, nature in all its glory.
I feel sad for the kids of today, caught right in the middle of the incessant urban sprawl that marches right over the top of all in its way to make way for yet another housing estate, highrise, motorway, factory....
Some say it's progress, but is it? And at what cost? "Yes Billy, you can climb that tree, but be very careful of those power lines." Or "Yes Emma, you can play in the park, but don't go near that storm water drain because you'll get sucked into it."
I never had to cross 4, 6 or 8 lanes of traffic to get to school or the local shop, but that has increasingly become a hazard for the kids of today. Sure, some authorities have implemented laws to retain some trees and a bit of natural habitat, but quite simply, they don't go far enough, especially when we have so many endangered species, many on the verge of extinction, because of mankind's destruction of natural resources
Jafo
Reply #11 Monday, August 22, 2005 8:20 PM
Reply #11 Monday, August 22, 2005 8:20 PM
Ah...breed like automatons...live like automatons.
You get the environment/society you deserve.
Don't bother thinking that becoming an Architect will somehow save the world. You will simply call yourself happy as a pig in shit to just win ONE issue with a council with ONE application for ONE residence.
Architects are born with ideology and die with disappointment.
Engineers wouldn't understand an aesthetic if it ran over their dog and stole their wife.
Planners parrot policy formulated through economic constraint and modern consumerism and urban sprawl determines that the car takes precedence over the environment.
Developers build housing for breeders to increase demand for more housing. Let's face it...a tree or two could be seen as dangerous...falling out of them and running into them might reduce the breeding stock for the next generation of urban sprawl.
Think about it, folks....if these asphalt jungles were NOT populated the idiots would have to revise their style...even add trees....
But they are, so they don't....
Double Zero
Reply #12 Monday, August 22, 2005 11:36 PM
LMAO Interesting observation Jafo...Sheeeeesh!
Reply #12 Monday, August 22, 2005 11:36 PM
| Developers build housing for breeders to increase demand for more housing. |
LMAO Interesting observation Jafo...Sheeeeesh!
GreatSilverWyrm
Reply #13 Tuesday, August 23, 2005 12:00 AM
Reply #13 Tuesday, August 23, 2005 12:00 AM
At the risk of sounding silly by asking this without first reading the whole post-
Am I the only one that's noticed that there are in fact some trees in that picture? I can count 2, maybe 3 or 4.
I've seen pictures of the neighborhood I live in when it was first built, and it looks exactly like that. Y'know why? Saplings.
Granted there aren't as many trees as there could be, but there are some..
Am I the only one that's noticed that there are in fact some trees in that picture? I can count 2, maybe 3 or 4.
I've seen pictures of the neighborhood I live in when it was first built, and it looks exactly like that. Y'know why? Saplings.
Granted there aren't as many trees as there could be, but there are some..
Jafo
Reply #14 Tuesday, August 23, 2005 12:30 AM
Reply #14 Tuesday, August 23, 2005 12:30 AM
1970...2 years before embarking on 33 years of Architecture I wrote an essay about Urban Development....a local new subdivision was going up....called itself 'Gladstone Park'....sounded leafy, wot?....nope....there were 4 trees...on the entire x number of acres [4,500 homes]...but fear not...the new home owners were 'given' $10 each to plant some trees....pretty pathetic when you think about it...they'd just spent 4 or 5k just to buy their block...getting 10 bucks back was a laugh.
starkers
Reply #15 Tuesday, August 23, 2005 2:04 AM
Possibly there are, but it's certainly not the place to sling a hammock, sip lemonade in the shade or listen to the singing of birds.....not even to take your dog for a walk.
Reply #15 Tuesday, August 23, 2005 2:04 AM
| there are in fact some trees in that picture? I can count 2, maybe 3 or 4. |
Possibly there are, but it's certainly not the place to sling a hammock, sip lemonade in the shade or listen to the singing of birds.....not even to take your dog for a walk.
artweasloh
Reply #16 Tuesday, August 23, 2005 6:06 AM
Reply #16 Tuesday, August 23, 2005 6:06 AM
gosh. that photo says all. It's ridiculous to create a neighborhood without trees.
Lantec
Reply #17 Tuesday, August 23, 2005 6:50 AM
I own a Civil Engineering Company in one of the top ten markets in the US. I can tell you that the budget comes before the engineering. A person does not contract for tens of thousands of dollars without already having a budget. My job is to work with the developer to see that he builds to the CODES in place. If your local government does not have any tree protection ordinance in place or require tree replacement during development then the citizens or you municipality are to blame not the developer. In florida we have extensive tree replacement and protection requirements plus the requirement to have a professional Landscape Architect involved from the beginning of design. The developer has no choice and because of THAT he budgets for trees and landscaping.
I would suggest to those who do not like the kind of development seen in the photo GET INVOVLED in your local government. Go to City or County Council meetings. The Planning Commissions are usually responsible for the kind of code changes you need to keep this from happening.
I do, as a matter of fact have more control over what ultimately happens to a undeveloped property than most anyone else because I have the developer's ear. I happen to be a bit of an environmentalist myself. I have a staff biologist who inspects each site before we start design to access whether it is occupied by endangered or threatened species (plant or animal). I "lend" him out to the County for lectures and to work with 4H groups etc.My wife is the secretary of the local Audubon Society and I sometimes speak at coucil against certain development codec changes which would make things easier for my clients. I was involved in the regional change in code to a requirement of 15% of the project land to be put into a tree preservation area which must contain at least 50% of the specimen trees already on site. It started in one municipality and spread to almost all other counties and cities within Central Florida.
Cindy, I started in surveying also. Your situation is much the same as here. One of the major expenses on large projects is the Tree Survey. In fact in the 80's when the law was passed the cost of a survey went up around 500%. That does not include the cost to replace the taken trees. The developer's caught in the change lost their shirts. But like any other investment, development is a bit of a gamble. Some do the investigation up front well enough to know what they are spending and what may change during the six month to one year process.
Jafo, I can't count the times a project has gone away because the Architect had visions of grandure. Banks will not loan money for crystal chandaliers and imported marble floors without good reason. The banks also look at reality. If you can build a rectangle with 100,000 sq.ft. of space for X and you can build a dome or some other unique design with 100,000 sq.ft. for 3X....guess what the banks prefer.
Reply #17 Tuesday, August 23, 2005 6:50 AM
| Then the engineers hit you with the budget, and the architects shut up! |
I own a Civil Engineering Company in one of the top ten markets in the US. I can tell you that the budget comes before the engineering. A person does not contract for tens of thousands of dollars without already having a budget. My job is to work with the developer to see that he builds to the CODES in place. If your local government does not have any tree protection ordinance in place or require tree replacement during development then the citizens or you municipality are to blame not the developer. In florida we have extensive tree replacement and protection requirements plus the requirement to have a professional Landscape Architect involved from the beginning of design. The developer has no choice and because of THAT he budgets for trees and landscaping.
I would suggest to those who do not like the kind of development seen in the photo GET INVOVLED in your local government. Go to City or County Council meetings. The Planning Commissions are usually responsible for the kind of code changes you need to keep this from happening.
I do, as a matter of fact have more control over what ultimately happens to a undeveloped property than most anyone else because I have the developer's ear. I happen to be a bit of an environmentalist myself. I have a staff biologist who inspects each site before we start design to access whether it is occupied by endangered or threatened species (plant or animal). I "lend" him out to the County for lectures and to work with 4H groups etc.My wife is the secretary of the local Audubon Society and I sometimes speak at coucil against certain development codec changes which would make things easier for my clients. I was involved in the regional change in code to a requirement of 15% of the project land to be put into a tree preservation area which must contain at least 50% of the specimen trees already on site. It started in one municipality and spread to almost all other counties and cities within Central Florida.
| My Husband and I survey for a living. |
Cindy, I started in surveying also. Your situation is much the same as here. One of the major expenses on large projects is the Tree Survey. In fact in the 80's when the law was passed the cost of a survey went up around 500%. That does not include the cost to replace the taken trees. The developer's caught in the change lost their shirts. But like any other investment, development is a bit of a gamble. Some do the investigation up front well enough to know what they are spending and what may change during the six month to one year process.
Jafo, I can't count the times a project has gone away because the Architect had visions of grandure. Banks will not loan money for crystal chandaliers and imported marble floors without good reason. The banks also look at reality. If you can build a rectangle with 100,000 sq.ft. of space for X and you can build a dome or some other unique design with 100,000 sq.ft. for 3X....guess what the banks prefer.
Fuzzy Logic
Reply #18 Tuesday, August 23, 2005 6:58 AM
Reply #18 Tuesday, August 23, 2005 6:58 AM
The people responsible for barren wastelands masquerading as housing estates are the people dumb enough to buy the houses. Developers will only build what they know will sell. So, if people are willing to live in a sterile environment, why should the developer add any extras... like trees... which cost money for no return.
I wouldn't want to live there or anywhere similar. No trees, no grass, no way...
joeKnowledge
Reply #19 Tuesday, August 23, 2005 7:08 AM
Reply #19 Tuesday, August 23, 2005 7:08 AM
I should have studies Civil Engineering instead of Architecture... Architects seem to be there only to approve plans, if that. The developer seems to always go to the contractor with the hopes that they have an architect on staff rather than a architetural office.
Sure there are a couple of trees... they look like branches coming out of the ground... all 4 of them out of how much property? How long will it take for them to grow (if they make it)?
What caught me off guard in the article was this:
Developers have done surveys to determine what potential owners want.
???????
People really want that?
Sure there are a couple of trees... they look like branches coming out of the ground... all 4 of them out of how much property? How long will it take for them to grow (if they make it)?
What caught me off guard in the article was this:
Developers have done surveys to determine what potential owners want.
???????
People really want that?
_02
Reply #20 Wednesday, September 14, 2005 6:11 PM
Sorry this is so late in the game, but I wanted to tell you that my husband is a PLS who owns his own Surveying company. This is where we are ending!! He is also a Civil Engineer, but he really loves surveying.
Reply #20 Wednesday, September 14, 2005 6:11 PM
| Cindy, I started in surveying also. |
Sorry this is so late in the game, but I wanted to tell you that my husband is a PLS who owns his own Surveying company. This is where we are ending!! He is also a Civil Engineer, but he really loves surveying.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1 Monday, August 22, 2005 10:05 AM
I grew up in a neighborhood with trees, and alleys in the back.
Looked almost as nice as the neighborhood in 'Leave it to Beaver'.
America is only making the blank statements by not avoiding those types of developemnts. If nobody moved in, the design would change.