fmpden -

Excellent question. The reasons that a higher tree cover % is desired has everything to do with soil and environmental health. It actually has little to do with aesthetics.

Higher tree cover is an indicator of better soil structure, balanced soil moisture levels, cleaner soil and air, cleanear water, etc. More often than not, an area where trees can grow can sustain most other types of vegetation, and the opposite is also true.

The other reason you want a higher cover number is that it improves air quality and, much more importantly actually, improves the water quality by cleansing storm and other runoff.

So, to we conservation types, the higher the better on the number. However, I know many people like you who love the front range for the exact reason that you can see the "big sky".

Honest Abe, I was kind of baiting you because I figure your response was going to be that more tress are better. I am not sure you can sustain that premise. I would agree that more trees are better if it is appropriate. They didn't call this the great prarie from nothing. I grew up in the sandhills of Nebraska where great environmental thinkers of the late 1800s believed that the only thing wrong with the sandhills was the lack of trees. The results was a disastrous program call, "Timber Claim." You could obtain a section of ground if you agreed to plant a quarter to timber. The sandhills were never designed to grow trees. Nor was it designed for the plow but that is another whole discussion.

Just to say more trees are better and Denver needs more trees is not supportable. Given our current water situation we could use a few more brown lawns and fewer water soaking cottonwoods or Russian Olives. Denver does just find with the trees they have. If you want tree cover, move to Charlotte --- IMO !

Personal preference on having a green, lush landscape vs. a drier brown, more dramatic landscape is purely subjective. We'll agree to disagree.

But how could it be a bad thing to have cleaner air and water? Seems like a universally accepted "good thing" to me.

""Colorado is a dryland ecology, nd with the rapid growth of population and urban areas here, it's vitally important to recognize the full environmental and economic value of urban trees. When impervious surfaces expand, tree cover needs to expand to compensate" - Gary Moll, vice president of urban forestry at American Forests.

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that Denver needs to get up to 30, 40, of 50% canopy cover like some other metros. But I do think focusing on growing the tree cover with species that can thrive there (like you guys have already been doing a great job of) is an effort worth continuing.

Did that mean - "More concrete added, more trees needed?" - or something like that?

Pretty much. As you add concrete, you take away grass and brush, add cars, furnaces, etc. to the mix.

The only way to negate the negative effects is to make a concerted effort to keep the tree population stable (or increasing).

Easier to do in Minneapolis or Seattle than in Denver or Las Vegas.

I honestly don't see the appeal of Denver. It would seem that if you were a mountain type person that had to go skiing all the time, then living in Seattle would fit the bill. A great, green environment yet access to the mountains.

I don't agree that the climate in Denver is mild. I was in Denver in early January after one of those snowstorms, and the high for the day was 1F with windchill probably -20. There was no sun that day and it was bitter cold. It can also get up to 100 degrees in the summer, and because of the altitude, the sun feels stronger up there.

Denver is a Great Plains city with access to mountains (Front Range is just tilted high portion of the sloping Great Plains). The Great Plains are known for being an extreme environment characterized by lots of wind and variable weather.

Once you cross into the mountains, however, everything changes.

While it was 1 degree in Denver when I was there, it was actually 20 in Aspen. The Rocky Mountains actually blocked the extreme arctic air from penetrating into cities like Aspen.

bk - people who have lived here 40+ years (i.e., all their lives) agree that this has been a horrible AND unusual winter. This is my 17th winter here and I've never seen anything as cold and snow-covered. Sure, if you were here on a day it barely got to zero, I can see where you might think every day of every winter is like that. Generally, many winters days are like they were today: sunny and in the 50s-60s. That's a lot warmer than where I grew up in Boston! I have never needed winter boots, for instance, for going to work. I abandoned my long winter coat from Boston many years ago. I'll take a Denver winter any time over one in an east coast or mid-west city!

I am willing to take the conversation off-line since it really has nothing to do with relcating to Denver. I enjoy the discussion because it is one that is on-going in this area. I assume, HonestAbe is not a resident of the area or have a lot of experience with the Denver environment.

<<<<Personal preference on having a green, lush landscape vs. a drier brown, more dramatic landscape is purely subjective.>>>>

I am not sure that should be personal preference. Along the front range, a lush landscape with KY blue grass and lot of plantings mean that you are pumping a lot of processed water. The focus should be living within the environment of a high desert plain. The application of xeroscape should have a high priority. It doesn't surprise me that someone in the foresty business think we should be planting urban trees. And we probably should to a limited degree. There are no "native species" that thrive on the front range. If it thrives in the city is because we planted it and we water it.

We have many of the trees that we have because Mayor Speer traveled to Paris a hundred years ago and decided that is how we should look. Since they had no idea which tress would grow, they literally planted block after block with the same trees. And then shift to another species for a few more blocks. Makes for an interesting neighborhood of trees until Dutch Elm showed up. Then whole blocks of Elm trees were lost.

The trees we have are fine and we replace what we loss but am not sure we have programs to plant more.

But none of this answers the original question. And I don't think having a 5% tree cover is a negative.

Lived in Denver for a year. So, while not a long-term resident, I did see 4 seasons.

I like alot about Denver, don't get me wrong. It is one of the few cities I would consider moving to someday, although I'm not actively trying to to relocate there or anything.

To me, the dull barren high plains are more than offset by what lies just a couple hours to the west :)

Funny all this talk about trees.... to me, the dry high plains without alot of trees is part of Denver's character. Agree that you don't just want to assume that growing trees is necessary everywhere.

You don't have to get far west and you start getting into forests.

And I'm not an authority on this, but I would suspect trees would help the smog issue. However, if they don't want to grow there, why force it? Focus on what you have.

Trees will not have much of an impact. Our smog is caused primarily by three factors. Our problems starts with car since we don't much heavy industry, then Denver sits in a river basin area which traps the snog, and then the altitude lets the sun work better on the O3 which increases the smog. BUT it is not very bad. A few days in the winter is the extent. We do not have prolonger periods of smog. We let our LA cousins worry about that.

bkluvsNola said, "I honestly don't see the appeal of Denver. It would seem that if you were a mountain type person that had to go skiing all the time, then living in Seattle would fit the bill. A great, green environment yet access to the mountains. "


bk - Seattle would NOT fit the bill for me. A couple of things important to me, which you are overlooking, are abundant sunshine and a decent (i.e., warm) summer.

I've lived in a couple of always-cloudy, frequently-drizzly locations (Pittsburgh and Syracuse,) so Seattle would not fit the bill for me.

BarryK,

Then what about living in a city like Sacramento or Reno? Greener than Denver with plenty of sunshine yet close to Lake Tahoe (one on the west side of the Sierras and the other on the east). Definitely a warm summer too...

Although Dutch Elms may not be native to the high plains, neither are parking lots or shopping centers.

Where those shopping centers were built was once open fields, and now there is little absorption into the soil. Trees help with that.

bkluvsNola, I got it, you don't like Denver. I don't have a problem with that - to each his own. But I can't believe anyone would recommend Reno over Denver. I was there once and I couldn't wait to get out of the place. I also remember seeing parking lots and shopping centers in Reno. I'll take a wild guess here, but I don't think those features are unique to Denver.

Seattle and Reno over Denver?! Time to put this thread to bed.

huh? I get the absurdity of Reno, but I think there are quite a few people who would take Seattle over Denver.

And they are probably living in Seattle. Good.

Car...I understand your appreciation of trees. I grew up in Ohio and my heart is still there. However, I never realized that I never saw much when living in the midwest- until I moved to Denver. Now I can see forever and I love it! We'd not see the mountains if we had trees. It comes with the territory. I prefer it.