My street in Phoenix had way more shade trees in 2010 than it does now

I looked at old photos from when I moved in. We had big mesquites and palo verdes on the block that kept the sidewalks cool. Over the last decade, the city cut most of them down, saying they were a water use problem during droughts. Now the asphalt gets so hot you can't walk your dog in the afternoon. I get saving water, but isn't losing all that shade and making the 'heat island' worse a bigger climate issue? Has your city made a trade-off like this that backfired?

3 comments

3 Comments

the_james22d ago

You're calling it a trade-off that backfired, but that's missing the point. Those trees were using huge amounts of water in a desert city that doesn't have enough. Saving water isn't just one issue among others, it's the most basic need. A dead tree from drought is a fire risk and gives no shade anyway. The city made the hard choice to keep water for people's homes over keeping decorative plants. A hot sidewalk is a comfort problem, but running out of water is a survival one.

-1

burns.ruby22d ago

Look, I get the water is tight, but come on @the_james, calling it a survival choice feels like a stretch. Cities waste water on way dumber stuff all the time, like filling decorative fountains. They could have picked a middle ground, maybe watered the trees less instead of letting them all die. Now we just have a bunch of dead wood and concrete that's ten degrees hotter. Feels like a bad plan that makes the whole place worse to live in.

olivers2813d ago

Remember when my apartment complex tried to save money by turning off the hallway lights at night? They said it was a safety choice to cut costs. It just made the place feel creepy and people started tripping. I see what @the_james is saying about hard choices, but sometimes the fix makes a new, worse problem. Letting all the trees die feels like that, trading one bad thing for another that also hurts people.