Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TreeMac12 t1_iu0fdue wrote

What is your definition of "old growth? like 150 years old?

25

Zfusco OP t1_iu0x9uc wrote

Definitely using the term loosely.

16

Mailstoop t1_iu149e8 wrote

You should buy the property so you can decide what to do with it.

−36

Zfusco OP t1_iu14ras wrote

Funny, or maybe we could all just give a shit about the city we live in.

I do own a property, it had no trees on it before I bought it, they'll be putting a street tree in front of it in two weeks.

35

AbsentEmpire t1_iu1lvtt wrote

Hmm I live here, and I give a shit about the city, and I think building more housing is a greater good then leaving a previously developed lot vacant for a tree that we can just replant.

It's not like trees are an endangered species that can't possibly grow literally everywhere.

I would rather dense urban development be perused and green space outside the city preserved for nature, rather than turned into shitty developments named for the thing they destroyed.

1

Zfusco OP t1_iu1yh5b wrote

They're not mutually exclusive. There are already enough dwellings for everyone who lives here, we can renovate, hell we can knock down the old ones and build on the lots again. We wouldn't be having this conversation if there literally weren't houses for people. We're still 400,000 people below the peak occupancy of the city. It's not a demand for houses that's the problem here.

The footprint of the houses that are built on this lot is already established, the tree didn't have to go at all, it was a convenience matter. Tree's that are not blocking development are cut down all the time, and that's what the post is about.

18