Anecdote of an outlier: An "historic" and rather well-to-do New England town familiar to me recently removed all of its trees from a long section of the main street along the town green. This section of the street has many shops, and all I can imagine was that shop owners wanted fewer obstructions in front of their stores. However, the result as I see it, was to make the area much less pleasant to stroll through, and more barren when seen from afar.
Urban trees help create a sense of shelter and alter the character of light (shade, filtered, and dappled), significantly lowering the temperature of otherwise paved areas. They can create a more park-like atmosphere, encouraging people to seek out a place and linger in it, enjoying its relaxing qualities. So one would think this would not only be a benefit for residential neighborhoods, but also retail/commercial ones. Downtown Palo Aalto for instance.
But in this case, low tree density correlates to a high degree of conservative small town environmental and architectural ignorance and/or political ineptitude. The rich folks cut the trees down for one reason or another.
Urban trees help create a sense of shelter and alter the character of light (shade, filtered, and dappled), significantly lowering the temperature of otherwise paved areas. They can create a more park-like atmosphere, encouraging people to seek out a place and linger in it, enjoying its relaxing qualities. So one would think this would not only be a benefit for residential neighborhoods, but also retail/commercial ones. Downtown Palo Aalto for instance.
But in this case, low tree density correlates to a high degree of conservative small town environmental and architectural ignorance and/or political ineptitude. The rich folks cut the trees down for one reason or another.