Quote:
Originally Posted by megadude
Curious about those suburban SJ pics. What's with the lack of trees in some of those shots? Reminds me a lot of so much of British cities. You know, in the middle class and lower neighbourhoods that are completely devoid of greenery. Though those SJ shots at least have grass, being in the suburbs and all.
|
Lots of factors - the main one is it's cheaper to clear cut, flatten the bedrock, lair a couple of inches of gravel, and throw down sod. And we do whatever's cheapest, for everything. However, we used to require developers to plant trees - and all areas of the city built during that time, at all elevations and classes, have decently-sized trees.
For example:
They're still much smaller here than the same species would be anywhere else. The landscape is bare bedrock or peat bogs at higher elevations, and then a thin layer of soil along the river valleys. The places where these houses are used to look like one of these three pictures:
Bare bedrock with thin, poor soil:
Peat bog:
Thin soil in valleys:
And then it's just preferences. Middle-aged people here, my parents included, think trees in the front is a lower-class or bush living thing. If they bought a house with a tree out front that was higher than the living room window, they'd certainly have it removed.