[mikekchar]

I think the OP may have a point, though. You can have an area with lots of big buildings, take one lot and make a "greenspace" with it: some grass, a fountain, some bushes. But to make an area with trees (especially plural), you need some place fairly wide, that has light, and has enough ground water to support the trees. An area that supports those trees will have to be less built up than the average area that can support a lawn (which just needs a patch of light and a sprinkler) for instance.

From that perspective, I wonder to what extent the studies (which seem to be based on Australian cities) is biased by the types of environments that generally have trees in Australia. If you have have an avenue that is totally canopied by 100 year old trees like in some US or Canadian cities, is that enough? Or do you need a fairly large green space that also has trees? I wonder because I always found residential areas with old trees on relatively small lots to be really claustrophobic (but I know people who love them, of course).

[Tempest1981]

> An area that supports those trees will have to be less built up

You reminded me of Central Park. I wonder what it will be like in 20-40 years:

https://www.npr.org/2014/04/23/305643904/nyc-s-tall-skyscrap...

This NatGeo issue also had some cool city renderings:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2019/04/see-sust...

[Retric]

Individual trees don’t need that much space or even light. You regularly see them planted in sidewalks for example.

Further, they evolved to grow in forests when even small openings showed up in the canopy.

[lazyasciiart]

There are plenty of areas in Australian cities with older tree-lined streets, so that should be covered in the study.