Originally Posted by bolognium
Makes sense. The old sections of London are completely filled with trees, but those old neighbourhoods make up a very small percentage of the city. Most of London is sprawl and Smart Centres which is where trees go to die.
^That's not necessarily true. A large enough percentage of the city is older grid pattern neighbourhoods (which is what I consider to be older areas), and the "newer" areas built in the 60's and onward are full of trees. It's just the subdivisions from the last 10 years or so where the trees are still fairly small, and not as noticable.
As for the tree cover in London vs. Toronto, I wouldn't be surprised to learn they have more. As I mentioned, the nickname was created because when we were founded, there were
thick forests around the city. Since then nearly all was cleared for agriculture, or was built up by the city. The most evidence you will find of a "forest" you can find around here now, is some areas around the Thames (Meadowilly, Komoka) and some wooded areas in between fields.
I think it's a shame there aren't many large protected wooded areas in this area left anymore, but then again the land was arable, and since there were no major obstacles in the way (hills, lakes) it was mostly cleared.