I live in an area that in the past has been very much tree-lined and has a council that supposedly has good policies for keeping it this way.

In the last ten years I have noticed a lot of the trees disappearing, mostly because of redevelopment of individual houses into duplexes or apartments. Whether its by state planning policies or just the reality of development, trees are disappearing. A lot of the open spaces that we had were actually private property that was undeveloped or land reservations that are destined to be, so the amount of green space here is less than you would think by looking at first glance.

Does anyone care about having trees in amongst housing these days? Is it a thing of days gone by?

I like them, probably as I grew up in an area that had plenty. When I look at a house to rent or buy, I prefer trees, but when looking recently I have noticed not many people have them.

Do people actually like living in housing estates that have houses jammed together and no trees at all except for the obligatory parks?

The more trees the more expensive the realestate is.
So I don't think it's a matter of people not wanting them it's a matter of being able to afford to have them.

It would be helpful if we took a holistic rather than a self-ish view of trees. What do they provide and how do they contribute to a less sterile environment? And then there is the novel concept of just allowing trees to exist as valid inhabitants of the planet and not as an opportunity or a problem.

Or we condence human living into smaller Hong Kong style apartments leaving more available space for farming and natural habitat.

I live in a suburb renown for its trees, but they are fast disappearing. I had about 10 very large gum trees on my property, including one that was only 2 feet from the house and had massive overhanging branches that would occasionally fall on the roof and smash a bunch of tiles, not to mention the foundations being lifted and cracks appearing in the walls. The council wouldn't let me touch it, but I had it cut down anyway. I was tired of water damage due to smashed tiles, and the future cost of repairing the house. Since I had so many trees, including about a dozen others in addition to the gum trees, there was zero visual impact to the area.

However, it seems that anyone doing a knock down-rebuild is allowed to totally clear a block. My in-laws used to live around the corner, and had a substantial 4 bedroom, double-storey, double-brick house that could hardly be seen from the street due to the number of trees, their back yard was like a botanic garden. The house next door to theirs was similar and was called "Tall Trees" due to the large number of trees in the front and back yard. Five years later, both properties have been sold and EVERY tree on each block cut down to build stupidly large houses.

For the same reasons as Harrow describes when we downsized and moved to Qld. from Vic . I wanted no trees ,no raking leaves etc. we bought into an estate that surrounds a lagoon and park .
That way best of both worlds ,trees , wildlife ,walkways all cared for by the council. Should be more of it .

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..
I live in an area that in the past has been very much tree-lined and has a council that supposedly has good policies for keeping it this way.

In the last ten years I have noticed a lot of the trees disappearing, mostly because of redevelopment of individual houses into duplexes or apartments. Whether its by state planning policies or just the reality of development, trees are disappearing. A lot of the open spaces that we had were actually private property that was undeveloped or land reservations that are destined to be, so the amount of green space here is less than you would think by looking at first glance.

Does anyone care about having trees in amongst housing these days? Is it a thing of days gone by?

I like them, probably as I grew up in an area that had plenty. When I look at a house to rent or buy, I prefer trees, but when looking recently I have noticed not many people have them.

Do people actually like living in housing estates that have houses jammed together and no trees at all except for the obligatory parks?

I care and that's why I don't support the idea of a big australia, doubling the population, and then doubling it again. Immigration needs to be more sustainable where the number of people coming in is closer to the number leaving to immigrate to other nations.

Local government over here have their trees on their books as fiscal assets. Creative accounting but I guess there's less incentive to cut them down if they make the asset register look better.

Select to expand quote

Little Jon said..

FormulaNova said..
I live in an area that in the past has been very much tree-lined and has a council that supposedly has good policies for keeping it this way.

In the last ten years I have noticed a lot of the trees disappearing, mostly because of redevelopment of individual houses into duplexes or apartments. Whether its by state planning policies or just the reality of development, trees are disappearing. A lot of the open spaces that we had were actually private property that was undeveloped or land reservations that are destined to be, so the amount of green space here is less than you would think by looking at first glance.

Does anyone care about having trees in amongst housing these days? Is it a thing of days gone by?

I like them, probably as I grew up in an area that had plenty. When I look at a house to rent or buy, I prefer trees, but when looking recently I have noticed not many people have them.

Do people actually like living in housing estates that have houses jammed together and no trees at all except for the obligatory parks?

I care and that's why I don't support the idea of a big australia, doubling the population, and then doubling it again. Immigration needs to be more sustainable where the number of people coming in is closer to the number leaving to immigrate to other nations.

I'm with you there! Immigration seems to be just shifting the problem of an unsustainably growing population in other parts of the world to different parts. Australia is a dry continent and nothing like Indonesia to our north, yet people assume that a larger population would work.

I think its pretty clear when a lot of people migrate to Australia and then a few generations later they also don't bother having large families, so the whole idea of immigration to replace population growth is a mistake.

Select to expand quote

Harrow said..
I live in a suburb renown for its trees, but they are fast disappearing. I had about 10 very large gum trees on my property, including one that was only 2 feet from the house and had massive overhanging branches that would occasionally fall on the roof and smash a bunch of tiles, not to mention the foundations being lifted and cracks appearing in the walls. The council wouldn't let me touch it, but I had it cut down anyway. I was tired of water damage due to smashed tiles, and the future cost of repairing the house. Since I had so many trees, including about a dozen others in addition to the gum trees, there was zero visual impact to the area.

However, it seems that anyone doing a knock down-rebuild is allowed to totally clear a block. My in-laws used to live around the corner, and had a substantial 4 bedroom, double-storey, double-brick house that could hardly be seen from the street due to the number of trees, their back yard was like a botanic garden. The house next door to theirs was similar and was called "Tall Trees" due to the large number of trees in the front and back yard. Five years later, both properties have been sold and EVERY tree on each block cut down to build stupidly large houses.

I'm on the other side of the river to you, but I see exactly the same thing here. When I first moved here, I had to get a few dead gum trees cut down, but council approval was needed to confirm that yes indeed they were dead and needed to be removed. The council guy that came around was impressed that I had recently planted so many native trees in the yard.

Now, I am not so keen on trees when they are in the wrong place, and no doubt council have changed their view a bit... but state planning controls effectively say you can build a huge house, displace a lot of trees, and don't really have to replace them. The house to the north of me was knocked down and a lot of trees and shrubs cleared, and a 2 storey monster house with pool was built, with a few token shrubs that really should be trees.

You seemingly can't stop it, but its disappointing none the less.

It would be great if there was a mandated border on your back yard where you could or should plant trees, but no one will go for that when they could have a bigger house or pool.

Recently I have been looking at rental properties, and there are no trees! Almost all of them have nothing, probably to reduce maintenance issues, but to me it looks barren. When I do see a place with great trees it is almost a shock.

Recently had a coffee with a self confessed tree hugger. I said I need to cut down a tree that was over hanging my house. It had recently dropped a branch which dented my roof and continually fills the gutters with fine leaves. No amount of discussion could convince my tree hugging friend that I had any right to cut down the tree. I wonder how my insurance company would see it.

Her option of trees was that if you live in the bush (I live in the suburbs) then you should not be allowed to cut trees down and that having them hang over your house is okay. Her words went like this. If a fire comes a long, then just leave the house. I'm pretty sure the rural fire service would like to have fire exclusion zones ( minimal fuel) around any asset you would like to survive a bush fire. Plus having the RFS put their lives at risk (for any reason) to save a property that the owners have made no attempt to reduce the risk of catching fire is just f%%king wrong. These RFS should never ever consider putting their lives a risk.

When I said to her that maybe the government needs to relook at how they manage fuel levels in forests and putting in fire exclusion zones/breaks that suit the changing climate conditions. No way was the reply. Beats me, my way of thinking goes a bit like, lets sacrifice 5% to save 95% of our natural forests. They're just numbers I plucked out of my head, but if we don't step up to the plate, admit we need to change what we are doing now, then god help us next year.

The first step to getting options changed in the general public, is for the Liberal, Labour and Greens to admit that they have got it wrong, instead of trying to blame each other in an attempt to score political points. Because, as long as these pricks leading these political parties are in denial, then so will be most of the sheep who vote for them.

Trees = shade = cool
Whoever let new housing consist of black roof, dark paving, no shade from trees and fark-all eaves?

No wonder all the Mcmansions run aircon 16hrs a day

Lunacy for a place like Oz.

I'm glad the population elephant was raised. It is the prime driver of so many issues and a cornerstone of policy that encourages limitless economic growth. That also drives policies to maximise profit etc by doing things like clearfelling in developments.

I take exception to the Green bashing. It's such a populist position to mindlessly stereotype all of them and their supporters. Consider the state of the country had not conservation minded people not advocated for preservation in National Parks and the like. You can bet they would have been mined or covered in cow **** and weeds without earlier foresight.

What is in question is the management and that's where we've been wilfully ignorant of indigenous expertise and guilty of
woefully under resourcing the protection of our natural assets and the communities that live in and around them.

It's not just shade it's the moisture the tree releases as well there like natures aircon.
But there has been an increase in the fire proofing of property by council laws & they want clear fire breaks around new houses in high fire danger areas & I can only see that increasing.
Some councils won't allow occupation until leaf guards on guttering are installed now .

I like trees and will be planting 300 soon. However they cause trouble when too close to buildings.

Trees are actually quite incredible. It's amazing they can circulate water and nutrients from deep underground in their roots right up to leaves far above the ground.

Just come back from Sydney. We don't need any more people coming here in certain places.... insane.

trees ... let's plant as many as we can, the right ones, in the right spot, that aren't a risk to property or people. Opinions on either extreme of the argument are unfortunately the ones that are the loudest.

Select to expand quote

Boardwalk said..
I take exception to the Green bashing.

Sorry Boardwalk, just couldn't resist. Got to keep a bit of humour going.

Select to expand quote

Mark _australia said..
Trees = shade = cool
Whoever let new housing consist of black roof, dark paving, no shade from trees and fark-all eaves?

No wonder all the Mcmansions run aircon 16hrs a day

Lunacy for a place like Oz.

Yep. The more the better. Trees provide free air conditioning through transpiration- especially large leafed varieties.

Select to expand quote

actiomax said..
It's not just shade it's the moisture the tree releases as well there like natures aircon.
But there has been an increase in the fire proofing of property by council laws & they want clear fire breaks around new houses in high fire danger areas & I can only see that increasing.
Some councils won't allow occupation until leaf guards on guttering are installed now .

I used to install gutter guards for people. when installing i would explain that the guards would need removing regularly to remove the trapped leaves and debris. this could damage the guards so that they would need replacing. a clean out of a roof with gutter guards was a lot more expensive than just a bare gutters .. you can work out what happened to that side of my business

gippslandsgold.com.au/articles/planned-burns-halted/?fbclid=IwAR0UA4ToMXNi80K1q7HsdLiFMfblTi3c19VVJfJ2z-RBaxpkjn9omy_3-Vw

Are any species of tree better to reduce the risk of bushfire than others? Are eucalypts the only species that will survive, or would another species survive if managed by people, and reduce the risk from bushfire?

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..
Are any species of tree better to reduce the risk of bushfire than others? Are eucalypts the only species that will survive, or would another species survive if managed by people, and reduce the risk from bushfire?

Cactus .?

Select to expand quote

Imax1 said..

FormulaNova said..
Are any species of tree better to reduce the risk of bushfire than others? Are eucalypts the only species that will survive, or would another species survive if managed by people, and reduce the risk from bushfire?

Cactus .?

True but I am not sure I would get much shade from a cactus! In fact, I have one or two somewhere and they haven't grown noticably in the years I have had them so I don't know if they would do well to replace the bigger trees

Select to expand quote

Crusoe said..




gippslandsgold.com.au/articles/planned-burns-halted/?fbclid=IwAR0UA4ToMXNi80K1q7HsdLiFMfblTi3c19VVJfJ2z-RBaxpkjn9omy_3-Vw

Sure, and we may just as well stereotype all country people because they lit several fires.

Select to expand quote

Crusoe said..

Boardwalk said..
I take exception to the Green bashing.

Sorry Boardwalk, just couldn't resist. Got to keep a bit of humour going.

???? All good Crusoe, a bit of balance doesn't go astray.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..
Are any species of tree better to reduce the risk of bushfire than others? Are eucalypts the only species that will survive, or would another species survive if managed by people, and reduce the risk from bushfire?

Eucalypts have evolved to encourage fire to give them the competitive edge over trees that are more fire sensitive. They drop leaves with oils to slow decomposition, bark and twigs. You can negate this by raking up what they drop and growing lawn. There are non-eucalyptus species native to the Sydney area that would not drop as much long-lasting litter. Try the Cheese tree, Tuckeroo, Lilly Pilly, . If you want a bit more sun in winter the deciduous white cedar goes well. You' want to make sure nothing flammable is around the trunk, they'd all have thinner bark than a eucalypt. It only takes a short blast of hot air from your neighbour's unmanaged fuel to scorch the green leaves but most should resprout. I know the cheese tree (glochidion fedinandi) is particularly tough, at least as far as midnight administrations of roundup goes, I'd guess it'd come back from a leaf scorch.

Check the google images of houses destroyed by bushfire. You'll see many green trees surrounding the ruins. Trees survive ember attack much better than houses if litter is not allowed to accumulate around their bases. .