[HN Gopher] New York will plant trees using new tech to maximize...
___________________________________________________________________
New York will plant trees using new tech to maximize foliage impact
Author : PaulHoule
Score : 141 points
Date : 2023-12-02 00:32 UTC (22 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| I know everyone is gonna talk about how we need to give the poor
| more money, but I honestly truly believe there's no better way
| the city can spend money than planting and maintaining trees.
|
| It employs people, and it's really not that expensive, and the
| impact is demonstrably enormous.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| > everyone is gonna talk about how we need to give the poor
| more money
|
| Tangent but David Harvey says "wealth redistribution is the
| lowest form of socialism". A better way is to do a few things
| differently so those people are better empowered to make more
| money for themselves. This can be achieved by promoting worker
| control and ownership in the economy, so that when the economy
| does well so do regular people. There is no need for heavy
| handed manipulation to achieve this - we currently have plenty
| of laws subsidizing and promoting non worker-owned businesses.
| A little support for learning about, starting, and maintaining
| worker owned businesses would go a long way to ensuring that
| regular people don't end up poor in the first place.
|
| And then when we think of where to spend our tax dollars we can
| all agree that spending on planting trees is a great use of
| funds.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| > Tangent but David Harvey says "wealth redistribution is the
| lowest form of socialism". A better way is to do a few things
| differently so those people are better empowered to make more
| money for themselves.
|
| This is a pretty interesting take.
|
| From a Capitalist perspective, people know what they want -
| and the market is "efficient" when you let people do what
| they want. There's nothing more efficient than giving people
| money.
|
| From a Socialist perspective - I guess this is obviously
| wrong? If an economy free of government interventions worked,
| you wouldn't need Socialism in the first place? So it's
| better to let the government make investments on your behalf?
| waylandsmithers wrote:
| I think the point was that a socialist system could provide
| more services, perhaps to the point where cash transfers
| wouldn't be necessary
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Let's not conflate the free market, capitalism, and
| 'capitalist-ism'.
|
| I'm not sure I follow your terminology.
|
| Unregulated markets are not, in theory or practice,
| efficient and do not work out to be free markets; they are
| controlled by the few for their purposes. Government can
| regulate markets to provide free markets, reducing barriers
| to entry and requiring competition; they also can provide
| safety and public good by preventing harm to the public by
| fraud or injury. Another way to think of it is that power
| (over the market) is conserved; the question is, who has
| it, a few participants acting in their interests or the
| people acting in theirs? A well-regulated market is better
| and freer for almost all participants than an unregulated
| one.
|
| Regulation is not socialism; socialism is the collective or
| government ownership of economic assets. For example, the
| US government regulates GM, Ford, etc., but does not own
| them.
|
| Capitalism is ownership of economic assets by private
| entities, called capitalists.
| mindslight wrote:
| From an economic perspective: The market is not fully
| efficient, and it's a horrible assumption to pretend that
| it is (akin to asserting P = NP). Business/capitalist
| thought deliberately embraces this when setting out to
| find/create market inefficiencies (eg "build a moat"), but
| then feigns the opposite when criticized. At best we can
| say it's efficient to some epsilon, but this epsilon is
| nowhere near negligible at human(e) scales.
|
| Legal rights/entitlements are essentially a form of non-
| fungible wealth that resists the common pattern - being
| turned into an "asset class", centralized, and packaged up
| into recurring rent streams collected from wider society.
| It remains an open question whether the overall trend would
| be so strongly towards centralization without the continual
| government handouts powering the financial industry
| (witness all the whinging about interest rates existing
| again). But unless that dynamic is actually reformed then
| non-fungible guarantees seem like a necessary backstop for
| maintaining distributed power throughout society.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Interesting, this applies to people in employment. When I
| read the word poor, I was thinking of people experiencing
| homelessness who usually are unemployed. But there are lots
| of working poor too.
| okasaki wrote:
| Unfortunately anything the city does to make an area more
| desirable is inevitably followed by increased rents.
| couchand wrote:
| Again, though, what's the sustainable response? It's not cash
| transfers, it's community owned housing, land trusts, and the
| like.
| peyton wrote:
| Don't land trusts just lock people out of their home
| equity? Since we've rigged the housing market to be up-only
| and the main source of household wealth, it's probably best
| for New Yorkers to build lots and lots of normal homes that
| people can buy and not mess around with failed models from
| the Jim Crow era that locked black people out of wealth.
| umanwizard wrote:
| How have we "rigged the housing market to be up-only" ?
| polygamous_bat wrote:
| By ensuring demand keeps going up (population grows)
| while supply doesn't (building restrictions, restrictive
| zoning, NIMBYism). Econ 101.
| ethanbond wrote:
| LVT.
|
| There's a reason the law that GP states, that all public
| investment is eventually baked into rents, is called the
| Henry George Theorem.
|
| There's no way around this, but with LVT at least society
| captures the returns on its investments instead of private
| landowners, which can then be reinvested e.g. in nicer
| public housing or public transit that allows a larger
| geographic area to participate in city life.
| thelastgallon wrote:
| In Bay Area, if you can see a tree from the window the rent
| is more. If it's a scenic view, the rent is a lot more. Rent
| is gamification donee right, mandatory in-app purchases.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Rents only go up if more people want to live somewhere or can
| afford more to live there - or, maybe short-term, if the
| government levies more taxes.
|
| If you make everywhere nice, then you don't need to pay a
| premium to live somewhere nice.
|
| Maybe you have to pay a miniscule amount more in property
| taxes.
|
| You could just stop running trash & sewer service and let the
| city turn to garbage if you want lower rents. I don't think
| that's what people want. They want somewhere nice to live.
|
| You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| I will add that I'm being naive here thinking that
| EVERYWHERE in the US would do anything, let alone invest in
| trees, of all things...
|
| On a city level, if - say - Chicagoland invested in all of
| its neighborhoods being beautiful instead of mainly just
| the wealthy areas near the lake - then you might have more
| people than expected migrate to the area and drive up rents
| everywhere, slightly.
|
| But I'm skeptical...
|
| As much as people like a nice neighborhood, you pick where
| you live (your metro) mostly based on jobs and your life -
| not trees.
|
| You pick your individual neighborhood that metro based on a
| ton of factors. Trees could definitely influence that.
|
| If trees are everywhere in that matro, then it's a non-
| factor.
| mFixman wrote:
| If migration is the only reason rents increase, why have
| they been increasing everywhere?
| panick21_ wrote:
| Lets just destroy all public infrastructure. Then rents will
| be so low.
| hprotagonist wrote:
| The New Deal programs ring a bell here: "give money to poor
| people ... by employing them to plant trees in their
| neighborhoods!"
| oooyay wrote:
| This is really smart imo. Portland uses tree cover near the roads
| to keep them cooler. This year the city put data to that idea and
| identified "heat islands" that occurred due to a large drop off
| in tree coverage. Similar study below:
|
| https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-06/documents/ur...
| muhammadusman wrote:
| After moving from California to Portland, a PNW summer is much
| more enjoyable because of the trees. Ambient temps could be
| around 90degF and walking outside is still pleasant because the
| streets are covered with huge trees.
| iteria wrote:
| I live in Georgia and the summer is not a bother at all in my
| neighborhood because it's so forested. I can take a causal
| walk outside up until about 90F. Florida was hell even at the
| same temperatures because palm trees just aren't the same as
| oaks or pines.
| Jyaif wrote:
| > Florida was hell even at the same temperatures
|
| Humidity may have played a part.
| abakker wrote:
| Georgia is not a dry place...unless op mean Georgia in
| the Middle East.
| n8cpdx wrote:
| Really depends on the part of the city you're in. Take the
| green line out to Lents and walk back to the city center and
| you will develop an even greater appreciation for the
| difference trees make.
| throwbadubadu wrote:
| Good to have studies, but shouldn't even need them as the
| effect is pretty clear and undebatable when just experienced.
| It is not only coverage but evaporation from trees, too,
| besides the nice view and psychological effect of bringing a
| bit if nature into dead towns. Agreed, very smart, never
| understood why not more cities do that when feasible besides
| the long existing examples, especially as we have those heat
| waves and future prediction for quite a while..
| lazyasciiart wrote:
| So instead of studies they should just, what, have someone
| walk the entire city to identify these spots?
| doctorhandshake wrote:
| That's not remotely as crazy as you make it sound. This
| sort of census is used to count all sorts of things. In the
| case of NYC street trees, it's been done three times
| before: https://www.nycgovparks.org/trees/treescount
| lazyasciiart wrote:
| The tree census is not "someone walking around
| identifying trees", it is a study. It takes a ton of
| organization, methodology, data collection and
| management. It's an excellent example of why you need an
| actual study even to collect obvious data like "that's a
| tree!"
| melagonster wrote:
| but committee members will ask questions about the effects of
| their budget.
| BelleOfTheBall wrote:
| There's also the fact that trees are a long-term way to create
| welcoming public spaces. Nobody wants to sit next to a busy
| road huffing exhaust fumes, but put a couple trees there and a
| bench? Suddenly it's a nice meet-up spot. In fact, putting
| extra trees onto existing plazas would be a huge positive.
| mock-possum wrote:
| Portland is great about this already _and_ there is glaring
| room for improvement.
|
| I still don't get why we didn't do more to support Friends Of
| Trees.
| logtempo wrote:
| In France, they started planting trees along the road during
| Napoleon era, so the soldiers could walk at the shadow of the
| trees. Definitly smart, but also very old idea ahah
|
| That said, with the car development, they cut most of the trees
| because well...a car hitting a tree is not good.
| safeimp wrote:
| Something similar was done in New York as well for those
| curious: https://council.nyc.gov/data/heat/
| squirrel6 wrote:
| Considering historical disparities in tree planting and
| landscaping promulgated by Robert Moses and subsequent officials,
| this is a great step in the right direction. Community boards
| have already been pushing for this kind of environmental justice
| wodenokoto wrote:
| The article mentions that rows of trees is "the old" way of
| planting trees and this new technology will enable ... what
| exactly?
|
| Obviously they won't plant in the middle of the road, and I get
| the benefit of identifying areas that needs trees, but what
| exactly is different in the way they are placed along the road?
| vachina wrote:
| They mentioned "leaf-level" visualization, meaning they have
| now 3D data to work with instead of a pixel on a map.
| Practically this means they can simulate time of day coverage,
| and can plan for tree species for different foliage heights.
| melagonster wrote:
| look like they have new tool to estimate coverage of tree, and
| then residents can require government keep the region they want
| have same coverage.
| melagonster wrote:
| look like they have new tool to estimate coverage of tree, and
| then residents can require government keep the region they want
| have same coverage.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| It looks cooler and generates more meetings, presentations,
| fluff, costs to involve tech/simulation/AI/etc rather than to
| just boringly plant trees.
|
| Now they've got a TED invitation in it.
| 1over137 wrote:
| >Obviously they won't plant in the middle of the road
|
| It's the USA so you're probably right, but in other places
| roads have been depaved and/or pedestrianized, and trees could
| then be planted.
| cantSpellSober wrote:
| > new technology will enable ... what exactly?
|
| Covered in the article
|
| > Our model is able to measure canopy coverage using newer
| lidar data than existing canopy coverage maps and measure the
| size and volume of individual canopies, making it easier to see
| where healthy trees are located and where existing canopies are
| lacking
| asdff wrote:
| I wish these sorts of studies quantified how much more useful
| they are than the last model. There's a lot of papers out
| there where they reproduce some finding from an older method
| or dataset, but use the new hot method or dataset. Very few
| of them go ahead and do power comparisons between old and
| new, to see if it was even worth all the trouble and by how
| much.
| pharmakom wrote:
| The lack of greenery is the worst aspect of New York for me.
| huytersd wrote:
| It's really makes Central Park that much more special. It just
| feels like a true sanctuary when you step into it.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| Check out Fort Tryon as well; it's huge, and there are many
| parts where you can go and feel like you're not in a city at
| all.
| crazygringo wrote:
| It's extremely dependent on the neighborhood.
|
| Obviously midtown doesn't have a lot of trees.
|
| But there are also residential neighborhoods with streets where
| the trees from both sides of the street meet above and form a
| canopy.
|
| Not to mention the backyard areas of blocks of brownstones that
| can be full of trees and gardens and greenery.
|
| And then if you're lucky enough to live near something like
| Prospect Park, well you've basically got the biggest backyard
| anybody could ever ask for.
| woodruffw wrote:
| As others have said: it depends heavily on the neighborhood. I
| grew up in a neighborhood with decent (but not great) tree
| coverage; my current neighborhood has full canopies on many
| blocks.
|
| (This is one of the things I found most surprising about
| otherwise far more livable European cities: East Coast US
| cities tend to be far greener in a "diffuse" sense, if not in
| terms of total park area.)
| te_chris wrote:
| It's what I find stark between London and other continental
| captials too. You get seduced as there's often a trophy park,
| but after a while you realise that's pretty much it for
| miles, apart from the occasional square - looking at you in
| particular, Paris and Madrid.
| iAMkenough wrote:
| What most municipalities seem to fail to account for with urban
| canopy initiatives is the increased maintenance costs associated
| with root growth under pavement/sidewalks and increased private
| property burdens when trees die or are blown over in increasingly
| more severe wind storms. My city had multiple "derechos" a few
| years ago, and there's still plenty of yards with hazardous
| branches over structures and piles of decaying wood with no one
| that can afford to haul them away. Anecdotally I've heard that
| this is grounds for home insurance companies to deny renewed
| coverage.
| Incipient wrote:
| Definitely worth pointing out not all trees are suitable for
| urban greening.
|
| I can't remember what they're called, but in Australia we plant
| some deciduous tree that has deep but narrow root base which
| makes them minimally destructive to footpaths etc, as well as,
| being quite resistant to wind (especially in winter when they
| don't have leaves!)
| thedufer wrote:
| NYC uses ginkgos for this purpose. They still make up a
| fairly small portion of the trees in the city, though.
| They're also particularly hardy when it comes to handling
| pollution, which is obviously valuable in cities.
|
| I believe this style of root system is called a taproot.
| morley wrote:
| NYC is also interesting in that landowners are responsible for
| maintaining the sidewalks in front of their property instead of
| the city.
|
| Depending on your point of view, that's actually a solution to
| the problem you pose: the costs of maintaining damage from this
| plan are spread across private owners.
|
| It does mean that owners will grumble in fall months when they
| have to clear leaves from their sidewalks, and will complain in
| the rare occasions when their sidewalks crack, meanwhile their
| home value ticks upward silently.
| couchand wrote:
| > NYC is also interesting in that landowners are responsible
| for maintaining the sidewalks in front of their property
| instead of the city.
|
| Is that really unique? Everywhere I've lived the resident is
| required to clear leaves and snow.
| 1over137 wrote:
| I've never heard of such a thing. Where I am sidewalks are
| municipally owned and maintained.
| lupusreal wrote:
| I thought clearing ice from sidewalks was always the
| responsibility of the land owner. The sidewalks are on
| easements but it's still owned by whoever owns the rest
| of the property. This is why sidewalk clearage is always
| inconsistent; some property owners are very diligent
| while others are negligent. And this is also why there
| are so many horror stories about property owners getting
| sued when somebody slips and breaks their hip; it was
| their responsibility to keep the sidewalk passable so if
| they don't they become liable for resulting accidents.
| mindslight wrote:
| Creating perverse incentives where real estate owners are
| responsible for the damages caused by trees that the city
| insists on planting (and real estate owners are likely
| prohibited from maintaining) is not what I'd call a
| "solution". Asset values going up doesn't do anything about
| those perverse incentives. And in fact rising asset values is
| actually a liability for long-term owner occupiers,
| ultimately just facilitating more financialization and
| centralization of wealth by professional investors.
|
| I'm all for more trees. I'm just against this dynamic where
| such improvements are partially funded at the outset only,
| leaving the fallout as externalities that everyone has to
| suffer. If the city wants to plant trees that will eventually
| destroy the sidewalk, then the city should take on the
| responsibility for maintaining the sidewalks.
| couchand wrote:
| From TFA:
|
| > "It's about not just planting more trees, but the right tree
| in the right spot," said Alexander Kobald, a researcher at
| Cornell University. "It's really focusing on what the spot
| calls for and making sure the people [who live near the trees]
| feel heard."
| nemo44x wrote:
| What is this "researcher" saying though? There's nothing
| specific. It's just some vague thing with a dash of social
| justice signaling thrown in.
|
| Who decides what a spot calls for? How do we communicate with
| it. What is "right" and how do we ensure the right tree was
| put in spots that have been classified as "right"?
|
| Is this a serious person?
| meitros wrote:
| I feel a little surprised there are no mention of allergies in
| that article, e.g. that hopefully they're planting female trees
| which remove pollen rather than male trees which produce more
| girafffe_i wrote:
| I've also genuinely wondered if using white trash bags would have
| a measurable impact. Hopefully that's all going away with their
| "large bins" and make room for foliage
| Dowwie wrote:
| How do you solve the canopy challenge while not introducing
| challenges presented by tree roots? Is this a problem for the
| city 15+ years from now, so don't worry about it?
| panick21_ wrote:
| There are cities in Europe that have 100 year old tries in
| them. Roots are an issue, but a far smaller one then the
| benefit of trees.
|
| You of course need to pick trees that fit the application and
| climat.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-12-02 23:01 UTC)