NY Times, Saturday, January 22, 2000. "Urban Sprawl As A Way to Save Trees," The Big City Column, by John Tierney, Metro Section B, p. 1.

Review of a new book "Hard Green: Saving the Environment from the Environmentalsist," Dr. Peter Huber, 1999, Basic Books. Dr. Huber is a Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. There is additional information about the book available there. http://www.manhattan-institute.org/

The basic thesis seems to be that bigger denser cities actually result in more "wilderness" as rural land is then used less intensively. Certainly contrasts with many environmental views. The focus is on absolute acres rather than on the relative quality of those acres that are inhabited. Thought provokoing if nothing else.

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on January 23, 2000 at 14:48:23:

Hi Scott, certainly thought provoking, but in some small way perhaps true in the UK, where development is often the only way to obtain economic viability to take care of and ensure the continued benefit of trees for both this and future generations. For despite our advanced federal legislation and the issue of Tree Preservation Orders, a matter you have been discussing in another forum, they only provide a control to prevent the loss or unnecessary pruning of trees and do nothing to enforce good plant care.
Colin

Reply to post by Colin Bashford, on January 23, 2000 at 14:48:23:

I think the author's point is generally that the people have to go somewhere, better to let them interact with trees in urban-suburban environments (trashing some to be sure) than to evenly distribute them over the entire available land mass. That seems to take into account the damage and neglect people will inflict on trees.

This seems to be a very large scale and net tree biomass analysis and is really addressing quite different concerns than those or arboriculture and of planning for quality of life where people do live.

I wonder if the analysis applies equally to a constrained geographic environment like the UK with X average population density and a larger geographic environment like the US or Australia with much larger open spaces.

Reply to post by Scott, on January 23, 2000 at 17:47:28:

Scott I understand and accept the view expressed by the author, we in our small island follow that process by have what we call Green Belt areas which should according to our Federal laws should remain sacrosanct and free of development etc. Conversely we call our inner city or previously used land, Brown land and we try to accomodate people pressures in these areas. I think therefore that the basis of the analysis and concept is the same. The fact however remains that economically it is only by way of development and 'urban sprawl' that we find the finance to look after the trees. That is if you take Tree Preservation Ordinances seriously.
Colin

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on January 23, 2000 at 14:48:23:

Scott,

I heard it once said that if you housed the whole world at the population density of Manhattan
you could fit the entire world population on the small island of Tasmania (south of mainland
Australia). The only question then left is how you would then go about sinking the island?

Mark

Reply to post by mark hartley, on January 23, 2000 at 14:48:23:

With or without the devils?

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on January 23, 2000 at 14:48:23:

Sounds like the"New Urbanism" movement, where denser development, multi unit on small lots, pedestrian freindly should be the future trend. The Milwaukee Journal is starting a series on sprawl.

Reply to post by mark hartley, on January 23, 2000 at 14:48:23:

Not to worry- with that many people, either the island will sink under the weight, or we'll bury ourselves in garbage in 2 1/2 weeks.

I think I'll open a travel agency there.

Reply to post by Scott, on January 30, 2000 at 00:20:39:

O.K., Scott, be real

Not even Tasmanian Devils would live in a place like Manhattan, no offence meant.