[Yuri]

Originally Posted by edale

Of course trees provide shade and cool the urban environment, but I struggle a bit with desires to have extensive tree cover in climates that don't naturally support forests. I see this in the Los Angeles area all the time, where neighborhood groups and tree enthusiasts are always advocating for more and more trees to be planted in public right of ways, trees retained on private property, etc. Historically, Los Angeles was not a tree covered place (in the mountains and along natural waterways, yes, otherwise, no), and we don't get the year round water required to keep trees healthy throughout the year. Yet that doesn't stop people from wanting their neighborhoods to look like Atlanta.

You move to a place because it's warm and sunny 9 months a year, but you also want a lush, shady, forested environment? For some reason, this just really bothers me. Don't move to a semi-arid climate and expect to live in a shady forest. In drier climates, I think cities should try to promote shade structures, awnings, colonnades, etc. rather than create artificial forests that require irrigation.

I like this concept of turning an arid area into forest. Like Johannesburg, located on a dry savannah and looks like Atlanta from above, full of trees imported from Brazilian Atlantic Rainforest.

In any case, the city itself changes way more the natural environment than the trees that come along as consequence.