[luuundonjk]

I was walking in central London and something felt wrong. I couldn't quite tell what though, but I had this constant feeling of unease.

It took me a few days to understand - there are no trees in central London (the City).

Sure, you have a small/big park here and there, but no random trees on side walks. It's literally a (beautiful) concrete/glass wasteland.

Note: I only walked a few of the main streets, I'm sure I'm exaggerating a bit, but it's quite noticeable compared with other cities after you realize it. And there are random trees in other areas, outside City of London.

[jamiecurle]

I'm not sure what parts of London you were in, but there's many trees in London on sidewalks. There's even a specific species for it - the London plane (Platanus × hispanica)

If you're in the very new, constantly rebuilt, concrete jungle that is the very small part of the city, then OK, greenery is going to be hard to spot. Particularly as they tend to nearly always choose the wrong species to plant and aftercare is an afterthought. But your assessment is factually incorrect.

See for yourself. Go to Google maps, drop a good few street view randomly around the city and you'll see that more often than not you'll see trees.

Also, I have a networks in arboriculture who work in the city and they're never short on work.

I'm not doubting your experience of unease or a concrete/glass wasteland (that's yours and not mine to question) but the facts don't support the statement of no random trees on pavements (side walks).

I live in the North, but I'm often in London.

[thebrid]

I'd echo the gp's thoughts. There are parts of the City and the West End that are basically devoid of trees.

My biggest bugbear in London is the number of developments that have a "token tree" with one lonely tree in one corner, often doing quite poorly, presumably included to check some item on a planning consent checklist.

Of course, London has many green spaces and on the whole has plenty of trees, it's just they're quite unevenly distributed.

[jamiecurle]

Maybe I'm just in different places. Normally I'm walking from Kings Cross down Grey street and around Covent Garden type areas.

I'm nearly always on foot. Perhaps it's just because I'm also an arborist and I'm hard wired to see trees and avoid places that don't have them?

The token tree thing is a problem. Daisy Barrington was part of webinar on the topic as part of the Arboricultural Associations webinar series [0]. Rarely do the species planted get based on local ecology and or have a solid aftercare plan. They're normally chosen for immediate aesthetic look (Paper / Himalayan birch being the most common) rather than how they'd exist over time.

In short birch being a pioneer species is short lived (80 years), grows fast towards light and dislikes being pruned. Where as oaks, norway maple, London planes ( some of which are "climax species") etc live for longer, grow slower and respond to pruning better, support local ecology better and some don't mind the pollution of an urban environment so much.

[0]: https://youtu.be/Kql22dZlq6o?t=2407

[NoboruWataya]

> Of course, London has many green spaces and on the whole has plenty of trees, it's just they're quite unevenly distributed.

I would say they are pretty well distributed through places where people actually tend to live. I live in a pretty average residential area in zone 3 and not only are there nice parks nearby but there are plenty of trees. London is of course massive so I can't say it's the same everywhere but most residential areas I've visited have been quite green. The City and West End (very much commercial/touristy areas) are the exception in my experience.

[dcminter]

The City of London, aka "The City", aka "The Square Mile" is not the same thing as Greater London or even what's usually called "Central London." I don't think "Central London" has an agreed exact definition, but it's likely what you thought the parent post meant.

The City is a specific area, more or less covering the same area as the original Roman city. It's the original financial district - though a lot of that moved to Docklands at the tail end of the 1900s.

It's much more built up than even adjacent Westminster ("The City of Westminster") and definitely has far fewer trees.

[TimByte]

I don't think the point is that London literally lacks pavement trees. As you say, the London plane is almost part of the city's visual identity in many areas. The interesting thing to me is how uneven the experience can be

[jamiecurle]

Totally, "the city" (EC1/2/3/4) as the GP says is pretty barren, especially the newer built areas.

My guess would be that the bio-diversity net gain calculations put the ecological investment off-site where it was more practical.

It's a shame though as trees and architecture can happily co-exist with each other. Living walls and well kept green areas are entirely possible.

[luuundonjk]

open Google maps at Monument station, find a tree in the area. all the streets in that region of London (let's say 1 sq km) are quite narrow, I would guess there just is not enough space for street trees.

[juntoalaluna]

The article links to the Tree Equity Project (https://uk.treeequityscore.org/map) which has pretty detailed measures for London. Some very central areas do go as low as 2-3%, but they are probably the exception rather than the rule.

[jamiecurle]

When I drop a pin to Monument station I see a sign, so I spin the view around. In canon street I see two trees (no leaves - winter). They're hard to see as they're behind a black cab.

Clicking once into Canon street towards those trees presents me with the trees. They're now in leaf and look like Sorbus intermedia "swedish whitebeam" and the key id is the margin on the leaf and the green fruits. Photo was taken July/August as prior to that they're in the flowering phase (beautiful to see btw).

When I spin the view down Canon street I see three mature trees in full leaf on pavements / sidewalks.

As I said in another reply, I'm an arborist and I'm hardwired to see trees and perhaps I subconsciously avoid areas that have none, so maybe that's bias on my part.

[jjgreen]

The City is not central London, horrible place, dead at the weekend. (Shudder)

[almostkindatech]

Agreed when it comes to the City of London (for anyone not familiar, this means the financial centre). It can feel pretty grim walking there at times.

Elsewhere though, possible to plan continuous walks through greenish spaces. One starting at Victoria: Belgravia back streets, Hyde Park, Grosvenor Square, Marylebone High Street, Regents Park, Primrose Hill, Belsize Park, Hampstead Heath.

[graemep]

I am not sure whether GP means the City or central London in general.

It gets greener as you go further out.

One of the big problems in the UK has been the rise of low maintenance gardens, replacing plants with decking concrete, gravel etc.

[adammarples]

They mean the City of London. They capitalised the C and everything, it's a thing.

[graemep]

> I was walking in central London .... there are no trees in central London (the City).

It makes me wonder whether they know which bit is actually the City.

later on:

> Sure, you have a small/big park here and there

What big park is there within the City? The whole of the City is smaller than Hyde Park (including Kensington Gardens).

[TimByte]

The green space exists, but access to it is often something you have to deliberately route yourself through

[jamiecurle]

Maybe we're both right and wrong at the same time.

Here's a map of the canopy data.

https://apps.london.gov.uk/public-realm-trees/explore

[radu_floricica]

On the other hand, when I visit Venice - which is as tight a city as can be, small streets with stone in every direction except the sky - they somehow manage to drop trees in stone squares.

Same shock, different direction, much nicer.

[mickeyp]

What? London is one of the greenest cities in the world.

[drawfloat]

City of London != London, the city

The City is indeed pretty non green

[luuundonjk]

I'm talking about trees on sidewalks and streets, not about parks.

[pm215]

The city government tracks data on public realm trees, and has a nice map based visualization of it: https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-and-strategies/environm... and if you zoom in you'll see that many of these are streetside trees.

Personally I have always felt that most Japanese cities are very devoid of urban greenery compared to UK towns and cities.

[quickthrowman]

I just looked at the City of London (proper name) on that map, it has a far lower tree density than nearby areas. South Kensington is a giant hole of low to no trees on that map too.

[ndsipa_pomu]

It technically counts as a forest