I think were are caught between the need for increasing density and the need for maintaining and increasing tree canopy.
The way to get both is not by haphazard battle axe infills. That gives only slightly higher density at the expense of most of the remaining canopy. Just look at what’s happened in the inner south east Belmont through to Cannington.
We need medium density and more parkland. Which is virtually impossible to retrofit over suburbia.
Theres also a need for people to change their attitudes towards trees. Value them more for their benefits when alive. Make people think for more than a moment before rippin out their chainsaws.
Interesting statistic from the article:
“Perth has the least tree canopy of any Australian capital city…”
We have King’s Park, and that’s honestly amazing. But yes, there is hardly any green in the CBD. Even Central Park is privately owned.
That is what surprised me. King’s Park is one of the largest inner-city parks in the world.
New suburbs with no substantial trees, or only small establishing trees, are going to tip the balance toward lowest tree-canopy numbers…
The idea to retain trees and pre-existing growth in new development areas is a step forward. The clear-felling for new suburbs at the moment is such a mood kill on the area.
Massive mood kill, especially in summer. Those streets are deserted in summer, everybody sticking to their own little caves.
The new developments in my area, East of Perth, have retained some trees as they’re building. I think its council regs again though, so can’t say the same for other parts of Perth.
I didn’t even know that parklet was called Central Park. A more appropriate name is surely ‘Path with some Grass’
