Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

enemy_of_your_enema t1_jd4qzia wrote

I like the idea of planting more trees. We have a great tree canopy here but many neighborhoods lack enough trees. But I am really skeptical that this would have a measurable impact on hunger. I think there's a reason that the article spent virtually zero time talking about this angle.

Foraging/harvesting is work and if someone is struggling to feed their family, they are already likely time-poor, so telling them to go do some unpaid labor seems unhelpful.

Also, wouldn't there be a ton of produce that gets eaten by wildlife or just falls on the ground and rots, whereas if you had an actual orchard with staff who knew when and how to harvest food, you'd have less waste?

And then there's the issue of the food only being available for a very limited time each year.

23

fadedrosebud OP t1_jd4yt3v wrote

You make some valid points, but like most ideas that offer solutions to multiple problems, food forests are more helpful for some problems than others. The amount of edible produce available wouldn't solve a city's hunger problem, but it's better than a barren landscape that does nothing. As the article states "before the pandemic Dunbar Spring held annual community-wide milling events, in which pods harvested from the hundreds of mesquite trees in the neighborhood were ground into flour – giving them a year’s supply of flour."

More importantly, the neighborhood described benefited from a whopping 38 degree difference in temperature which is enough to justify the whole project IMO. And the plantings help absorb and mitigate storm run-off.

5

Grouchy-Estimate-756 t1_jd5pw28 wrote

I'm totally down for food forests, edible stuff growing everywhere but I'm not sure we need more shade, here. We're not exactly in danger of desertification. I think the temperature difference is a poor argument for this area. Stick to the better selling points, like fruit, food and general air quality.

4

Jazzlike_Breadfruit9 t1_jd6yxj2 wrote

On a super hot day this summer, go to The Strip that lacks lots of trees and vegetation. Then go to Allegheny Cemetery and feel the temperature difference. It is staggering.

6

fadedrosebud OP t1_jd9ho8v wrote

Exactly! Maybe our hot weather doesn't compare to Tuscon's but it still gets uncomfortable and causes heavy energy use for air conditioning. Look at neighborhoods like Squirrel Hill or Point Breeze for example where almost every residential street has long-established shade trees. Then look at Morningside which is also a generally pleasant neighborhood but has a sparse tree canopy making it feel not as nice.

2

Grouchy-Estimate-756 t1_jd8idax wrote

I hear you. I moved here from Texas, where we had months of temperatures that only happen for a week at best, in Pittsburgh. I'm also not out in shorts in 40 degree weather so my take on it is really pretty subjective.

1

covertchipmunk t1_jd8fukv wrote

Tree Pittsburgh has a map showing tree cover in the various neighborhoods. I think there's a newer map but this page has info from 2012. The "2012 State of the Urban Forest" has a lot of the data on tree cover in various neighborhoods.

2012 Tree Pgh urban forest master plan

1

Grouchy-Estimate-756 t1_jd8it2e wrote

To be clear, I'm a huge fan of all the trees here, and we should definitely plant more. I'm just not personally moved by the issue of it being too hot in the summer.

1

fadedrosebud OP t1_jd4za15 wrote

And, like any carefully thought out planting, plants would be picked with a variety of harvest times, so it wouldn't be a very limited time each year.

2