Tree City

Spring is here...

The flowering cherry trees around Baltimore are coming into bloom as the warm weather arrives, spreading their perfume across the city.

As I consider the lovely springtime aroma, I am moved to make a romantic statement:
A city can never have enough trees.

Even someone who knows nothing about environmental science can easily list a handful of human-scale benefits provided by urban trees.

Trees in the median of W 33rd, Baltimore.

I was more than a little sad, then, to hear that as a result of the city's 100+ million dollar budget shortfall for 2011, the ongoing effort to plant more city trees has been halted (Link missing, Same story Here.) for 2011 .

This whole no-money-for-trees situation brings up three questions for me:

1. How many trees does the city already have?
2. How any should we have?
3. How much would it cost to meet that goal?

~o~

Our Current Urban Forest...

According to Examiner.com, Baltimore city has about 2.5 million trees. That's about 3.9 trees per person. Collectively, this forest removes 244 metric tons of "ozone pollution" from the atmosphere. [each year?](*)

~o~

Money Trees...

A tree provides services to the city, and therefore has a calculable monetary value. Maryland has a REALLY COOL tree value calculator here, which estimates the value of these services.
Some quick calculations, for fun:

• A mature White Oak, 24 inch diameter trunk, growing in front of a single-family home in my neighborhood provides $389 worth of cooling, air cleaning and storm-water abatement per year.

• A young Magnolia tree growing in a nearby park provides $54/similar benefits/year.

• An average sized American Sycamore tree growing across the street from my apartment building (Note: this one isn't hypothetical!) provides $194/benefits/year. This breaks down as 4,700 gallons storm-water absorbed, 166kWh electricity not needed for cooling and 591 pounds of CO2 removed from my air.

~o~

Urban Forests...

Before the current budget crisis, Baltimore had set a progressive agenda for repairing the city's relatively deforested landscape:

In March of 2006, Baltimore City adopted a Tree Canopy Goal of 40 percent coverage within a 30-year time frame, thus doubling the City’s existing 20 percent tree canopy coverage.(*)

This has now been put on hold.

In comparison, here are some other urban canopy percentages for similarly sized cities:
An ideal coverage of 40% is borrowed from here. I believe this is considered a 'dense' coverage.

~o~

The Green Future?...

So it seems Baltimore could use another 2.5 million trees, to top our tree-population up to 5 million.
With tree-planting on hold in Baltimore, it seems that for the moment, the effort is left up to private citizens and organizations, which is a challenge people should become aware of.

Today...



Future?...


Planting trees is a great investment. I don't know how much it costs the city to plant a tree, but even if, for the sake of argument, planting a single linden tree sapling cost them 2000$ each (including initial labor and upkeep for 5 years), the calculator shows that it pays for itself in 20 years--after that it "turns a profit".

Now consider that a private person can plant and care for a tree for less than 100$.
(coupons for $25 off that tree here)
I hope Baltimore can continue greening- without breaking the bank.

The Village Green?

While I was snooping around for my most recent post, I discovered CleanerGreenerBaltimore.com, a local government initiavive to make the city more beautiful and sustainable.

Among the many neat resources here, (including promotion of an 'urban forest', which is just cool.) is a guide for turning vacant lots into community gardens (pdf).

I was reminded of a previous post here about a very large empty lot in the heart of my neighborhood owned by a commercial developer.




As of today, it appears that the lot, called the olmstead, is owned by Johns Hopkins.

It would be a benefit to the entire community if the University would allow the community to farm the Olmsted while development plans are still in limbo.

The area, of about 1.75 acres, could provide mini-lots to the many students and professionals that live in nearby apartments (pictured above).

Putting the land to a farming use would eliminate the need for mowing, as well as reduce local weed pollen (weeds also pictured above).

Could a temporary urban farm be next for the long-vacant Olmstead?

City Impressions

How sustainable is Baltimore? I stumbled across the chart below while surfing Wikipedia, and couldn't help but wonder where we stand among our peers in the shameful amorphous 'us cities' blob.

---

Impressions

Thinking about Baltimore in purely unscientific terms, it doesn't at first give one the impression of being particularly 'green':

• Derives it's electricity from coal and nuclear, both unsustainable long-term polluters.
• Miserable/non-existent bike lanes and crumbling roads dangerous to bikers.
• Sprawling suburbs contrasting with blocks and blocks of empty urban structures.
• Many treeless streets and spaces.
• Multiple limited, oddly-placed public transportation options which are not very well 'knit together'.
• A geographic location requiring extensive summer AC and winter heating.

On the other hand, it does enjoy some notable green/sustainable amenities:

• Several farmers markets offering local produce.
• Many mixed-use neighborhoods.
• Large numbers of vacant structures represent a capacity that can be 'reused' if the city grows (as opposed to new materials having to be used).
• Single stream recycling.
  
• Strong youth/artist subculture which promotes sustainability.

In many of these points Baltimore does not differ much from how one might imagine an average historic American city.