"Mike LaMana" fake@MikeatHeartwoodConsultingdotnet wrote in message
...
Jim: I see your points and agree with most of them on an individual-tree
basis. However, take a step back and look at most urban forests on a
meso-scale - not an individual tree level. What I see in much of the
northeast is that towns are living off the capital of old trees they
inherited during development many years ago. Replacements are generally
with
species that will result in neighborhood character DRAMATICALLY different
from what we see today or 100 years past.

Are we OK with the cumulative result of all these individual-tree
decisions?
I have concerns.
--
Mike,

I can only comment on my own city, Toronto. From the air Toronto has an
immense amount of green. In the suburbs, built primarily in farmland
(another problem g) there are probably more trees than before it was
urbanized. In the older neighbourhoods I would venture to say there are
more trees now than, say, 100 years ago, from looking at old photographs. I
think I can accurately go a bit further and say that this is a result of
deliberate policymaking by municipal governments. So, in my part of the
world, we're OK Jack. :-)

Jim