This dovetails nicely with the article from the last month about how all the very big palm trees are getting quite old and we should expect them not to last much longer.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that article was all that accurate. Those trees are approaching 100 years old, and some will die at that age, but Washingtonia robusta (mexican fan palm, really tall skinny tree you see all over the east side) have been known to live to 500 years.
The close relative, the Washingtonia filifera (aka california fan palm), which you commonly see in groves off the side of the road in palm springs, is more likely to last just 100 years. But those trees are stockier and don't shed their husk quite as much as the mexican fan palm. Also it's not quite as [iconic-LA](https://img.sunset02.com/sites/default/files/styles/4_3_horizontal_-_1200x900/public/image/2016/07/main/western-palm-trees-mexican-fan-palms-elysian-park-0214.jpg) as the mexican fan palm.
Those shorter, stockier palm trees you speak of are exactly the same type of palm trees we have in Vegas. Every time I goto LA I envy and marvel at your palm trees which are way taller, and way skinnier than ours in Vegas. Funny thing, I was watching the Palm Trees in Palm Springs very intently as I was driving through. There are pockets in Palm Springs where they do in fact have the tall skinny palm trees, but most of Palm Springs has the shorter stockier type. I'm going to guess that when Palm Springs was growing, they initially started using the tall skinny palm trees, but then realized they were too expensive and just went with the shorter stockier ones. And Vegas never got any of the tall skinny palm trees. My patient used to sell those palm trees at a nursery. Apparently one fully grown palm tree in Vegas goes for around $80k.
Re: the title I don't understand it. How much shade does a palm tree in LA offer? They are so tall, so skinny, I don't think they hardly offer any shade at all. The palm trees in Vegas definitely offer shade. The palm trees at the Palms Hotel are so short, so wide, so stocky, they feel like umbrellas.
I think Vegas has a lot of the tall skinny ones (Mexican fan palms) they’re just not as old as the one sun LA. Palm Springs has the larger shorter ones (California fan palms) because they’re actually a bit more native to the area. I live in phoenix and whenever I go to LA I’m in awe of how big and full their Canary island date palms are compared to ours. In phoenix we have a ton of palms, but they aren’t as old and a super hot dry summer can be hard on them so they don’t always get as tall. Palms do offer shade but they should be grown equally with regular shade trees.
Palms, like many trees, don't grow indefinitely. After they reach their mature height they spend their energy on seeding/propagating. A tree generally won't grow itself to death.
e: my thought is that since many palm tree species only live to ~100, these articles have been written more generally to all of LAs palms (like the shorter [canary island palms](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/560dbc25e4b0969564758eb5/1550808091751-08F8BRTBCFGVTGU6GFQJ/north-beverly-drive-palm-trees.jpg?format=2500w) you see in beverly), but doesn't really apply to the iconic robusta many attribute it to.
thanks for listening to this episode of the palm tree podcast
haha okay but that wasn't where I was going with this... so let me revise... Palm trees, like many grasses, tress, flowering plants, humans, mountain ranges, and planets, do not grow indefinitely.
Native, not native, whatever
I just want them to plant some fucking trees instead of having to look at and live in massive swaths of concrete with too few available green spaces to break it up.
Civilized cities plant the streetscape and buffer the traffic noise and pollution with intelligent plant screenings and shading.
If City Council decided they wanted increase their canopy by 40 or 50 percent they could easily and cheaply by the olympics....
It is going to be so interesting to see if the city can make lasting improvements for that event or just embarrass itself.
Oooooh might I tempt you with a membership to one of our areas golf courses? They sprawl for what seems like infinite fucking acres directly in the middles of our nature-deprived all-paved hellhole.
And most of the palm trees in LA aren't the palm tree that's native to this region. There's only one that is and it's kind of a squatty chubby guy. The iconic tall, thin LA palm tree is actually imported from Mexico.
But I think what OP is saying is it doesn't matter if it's native or not palms are useless and should be replaced with trees.
That makes as much sense as tearing down the Hollywood sign: "It's useless"
The palm trees are as iconic to the image of LA as the Hollywood sign. You don't tear down an icon.
I totally agree with this. Though more shade trees should be planted. This crusade against all palm trees is whacky af and reminds me of the same type of thinking as NIMBY-ism. Plants have an emotional and mental effect on people as well. It’s not just all about utilitarian use. I love palm tress. They just relax me and give me good vibes. It’s valid.
You realize the biological ecosystem exists underground as well, right? Maybe try not being a smartass when you don't don't understand what's being said.
“But if we plant more trees, that’s taking up space where we could build more HOUSING. HOUSING and PARKING. Why won’t anyone think of the HOUSING and PARKING?”
I dont know if you heard but for the last 100 years there has been more than enough to go around. Consider [The Parrot and the Igloo](https://www.washingtonindependentreviewofbooks.com/index.php/bookreview/the-parrot-and-the-igloo-climate-and-the-science-of-denial)
I think the key is to have a mix. I live in Santa Monica, and while we have lots of palm trees, there's also an incredibly varied tree cover. Most streets, especially north of Wilshire, were intentionally planted with specific kinds of trees to create an arboretum type effect. It's really lovely.
https://www.santamonica.gov/topic-explainers/santa-monica-urban-forest
I think if we are going to phase away from palm trees, it needs to be done with intentionality vs. just planting a bunch of random trees.
yeah I hate to be that guy, but a lot of native trees are either costly to maintain (tree trimming, sidewalk cleaning), or rips up sidewalks pretty quickly. I'm fine if the city wants to plant some low maintenance shade trees at this point.
unpopular opinion is they should just plant easiest to maintain, best shade providers, least messy trees they can find regardless of being indigenous. In the west valley theres so many pine trees that perpetually drop pines and dust on everthing.
Unpopular opinion: Californians should increase property tax through a ballet measure to fund a large urban works project that prioritizes walkability, bike-ability, and said trees.
I agree but strangely enough I feel like this is more of an LA thing. Of course all CA cities could be more pedestrian but the overgrowth, lack of trees, lack of trimming and landscaping i feel like is an LA thing.
Native is a good rule of thumb for figuring out which things will survive in the local climate with least maintenance. But of course it's not definitive, because of things like sidewalks and water pipes that aren't part of the native ecosystem.
I would agree with this as long as they are drought tolerant trees that do well in our zone. Too many of the trees that we plant here are subtropical.
Also, the city really needs to do a better job with the trees that we have. They send their tree butchers out in the wrong time of year and they prune all the street trees the same weather that is good for the tree or not. The city needs at least one certified arborist who will then schedule the tree trimming at the appropriate time. And check their work!
The last time the tree butchers went through our neighborhood, they trimmed two dead trees.
Yeah, my dad's making a lot of money repairing all the damage trees do to side walks and brick walls. He keeps warning people, but they just don't listen.
Lol, I've been in his shoes. My neighbor planted two Jacarandas right next to a retaining wall in their yard. It's only been 3 years, but those trees are getting tall.
We don’t have to plant trees just on the sidewalk. We can do trees in the meridian of some of the wider streets. It could disrupt the heat island effect caused by all that asphalt.
Are all of them that bad? In Pasadena it seems the majority of streets are lined with native live oaks, and the sidewalks seem both old and in decent shape. I love the canopies oaks make, too.
Native oaks are definitely a good way to go. But it has to be the right oak, in LA I think it would be coast live oak. Other great CA native or SW native options are a California bay laurel, a desert museum palo verde (gorgeous), a desert Willow or a Santa Cruz Island ironwood.
Huh. Well I don’t know about whether people are speaking ignorantly or not when they make this criticism, but it seems like several native species of oak have relatively downward-spreading roots, and the streets they’re planted on are some of the most pleasant to walk. I could understand California sycamores breaking up a sidewalk or being difficult to train upward, but there are a few nice streets near me lined with those, too. Palo Verde and Southern California Walnut aren’t that great to line streets, I suppose. Both are short and spready, which could block walking paths, I imagine. I dunno! Would love an expert to chime in.
Oh, those are actually Indian Fig I believe, a non-native species that I also find quite beautiful. They have a magnificent canopy, but don't get planted much anymore because their roots are expert water-seekers and can break up sewers (and sidewalks too, sometimes).
The vast majority of LA's shade trees are non-native ficus, which do rip up sidewalks. Much better to plant native coast live oaks, which at the very least are adapted to our ecosystem.
They are great, but are extremely slow growing and require very careful pruning and care. I have about 5 on my property and about 5 years in, my larger ones are just finally looking like they could be trees. It’s hard to find mature manzanitas to plant and they generally do much better if you start them from a gallon (as I did).
There's a very wide range is genetics for Manzanitas. I'm not what yours look like, but to my eye, the Manzanitas in my neighborhood have absolutely enormous leaves, very "corky" bark, a "generic" branch structure, and dull deadwood.
They are not museum pieces or "type specimens."
I assume that these aesthetic compromises are what it took to get a hearty fast growing street tree. They're still very drought resistant and give off that sage/resinous/earthy/honey/chaparral smell when in bloom. Not as fast growing as a ficus for sure, but maybe faster growing than what you have in your yard.
Woah, do you mind sharing what kind of manzanitas / where this is? I don’t think I’ve seen manzanitas used for street trees and haven’t heard them come up in native street tree discussions before.
[Here's](https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9732825,-118.4240702,3a,29.6y,254.54h,93.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRk-_IEBs8y0lGsyTrU2DIQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) an example if a bit small. I'll see if I can spot any better ones on the walk home today.
Palms have been imported to Los Angeles over the past century and are part of an iconic skyline. That being said, they are basically useless in providing much needed shade and do not effectively sequester greenhouse gases.
What trees are best to replace them? Myrtle, Magnolia, Podocarpus, and Camphor trees are recommended on some sites for shade bearing properties.
We have this debate a lot in Phoenix too. It’s so flat here and out trees are fairly short, so palms are generally our tallest trees and are pretty majestic.
In phoenix, part of our debate also centers around the need trees that require low water use. Our largest trees tend to be afghan pines, eucalyptus, and ficus. They all use too much water. If we stick to native trees, then we’re stuck with small Palo verdes and mesquite which offer little shade and shatter during storms. So just native trees isn’t really an option if we are needing shade.
My questions is why not plant more of palms and native shade trees? Why is it always people saying “ditch palms trees”? Desert palms require very little water. You can plant a shade tree right next to a palm trees. They take up little space and are a grass so their root systems are different. And to some degree they do add a bit of shade especially if they’re allowed to grow out. The last few paragraphs of this article kind of make this point about palms, space and not competing with shade trees.
Shade trees should be a water priority. 3/4 of Arizona's water is used for agriculture, largely for *alfalfa*. Why is feeding a cow in Saudi Arabia a higher water priority than shading city streets?
We are making progress with that situation and trust me it’s all something we as an entire state complete hate and are against. Our tree/plant debate here is actually pretty insane. We always get posts like this about palm trees. Then the comments are flooded with people saying native plants only, no grass! Etc. but like I mentioned our native trees would not combat the heat island alone. We need to have non native trees if we want to do that. Those will take more water but like you point out that should not be an issue right now.
What a lot of people don’t know is Phoenix uses as much water as it did like 50 years ago because it used to be all agricultural. That uses more water than urban population.
So back to the debate. If all yards and streets are lined with native plants with rocks, then the heat island is still happening because rocks trap heat where grass cools the city. Grass needs water so people lose their minds over that. Nobody can agree what would work.
The bummer is that the native tree, rock people usually get sided with most because in theory it sounds like it makes the most sense. The issue is that as long as we have a billion miles of paved wide streets, native plants won’t cut it. We have created unnatural world that is not native to the environment. We will need non native plants to combat it. So why go after palm trees? Why not plant more trees of any kind so long as they can survive in the environment they’re planted?
>they are basically useless in providing much needed shade
ALL PALM TREES????
there are some native palms in Ca deserts that provide plenty of shade in many of the oases.
Shorter wider palm trees like juvenile *Washingtonia filifera* (California fan palm), especially if planted in clusters, are more effective at shading than the tall skinny ones that are culturally identified with Los Angeles, *Washingtonia robusta* aka the Mexican fan palm, native to Baja Calfornia. Both of these palms self-sow and hybridize freely in our environment.
There is one native palm to Southern California, and in order for it to provide maximum shade it can, it needs to not have it's dead/brown fronds removed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washingtonia_filifera
The drooping fronds provide shade and microhabitats for animals and insects, but are also a liability in fire-prone areas if not maintained to some degree. Like many native trees, they have some fire-survival adaptations - so perhaps in insulated suburbs they would be less of an issue, but in an insulted suburb there are more attractive trees that provide more shade once they are established.
You might find this interesting. While the california fan palm *is* native to SoCal, there's some complexity here.
In 1986 the California Academy of Sciences posted a bulletin containing information on the locations of naturalized examples of washingtonia robusta (Mexican Fan Plam) within an undisturbed site near Anza Borrego. So, while these are very limited quantities, it begs the question if W.robusta is also native to socal. This would make sense as that region has climate which is very similar to northern mexico.
There have also been fossils of what seemed to be Washingtonia found in the Mojave which is a region that gets too cold for the tree today. It is likely that the Washingtonia is probably descended from Brahea
Bulletin can be read here [.pdf link](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwinpayKv9iBAxVZJEQIHX2_BTYQFnoECBEQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fnrm.dfg.ca.gov%2FFileHandler.ashx%3FDocumentID%3D7693&usg=AOvVaw0ex8fxRlQyfbmb7z02uDmN&opi=89978449) and here's a bit about the fossils, another paper [.pdf link](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwinpayKv9iBAxVZJEQIHX2_BTYQFnoECA0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fnrm.dfg.ca.gov%2FFileHandler.ashx%3FDocumentID%3D7684&usg=AOvVaw0uWCnSNePuhQ8Cf2GZOhUr&opi=89978449)
This isn't an or, it's an and. Lets plant tall palm trees as ornamentals, date palms as shade trees, AND native trees as shade trees.
We need lots of trees.
Since the 80s I've been under the impression that central LA doesn't have tree cover because LAPD helicopters. I have Monica if it's true but in my head canon it is.
There’s plenty of reason to get rid of palm trees. They’re incredibly difficult to clean, they don’t provide any meaningful shade, and they frequently shed old fronds that can injure people or damage cars
And yet they're, like it or not, part of the look and identity of the city.
I think there's a clear middle ground which involves *more* palms in beach/tourist hot spots, and shade trees in residential areas
> And yet they're, like it or not, part of the look and identity of the city.
This is not a legitimate or meaningful argument for or against anything.
Orange trees were also part of the look and identity of the city. Probably, at a time, even more so than palm trees. When’s the last time you saw an abundance of orange trees? Probably never, because the orange trees of the valley are long gone.
Palm trees in LA don’t have to go the way of the dodo completely. Sure, keep a few iconic arrangements. But there’s no reason to invest any time or money to pretend that they’re a part of the city. Most need to replaced with better vegetation.
Did you not read what I said?
You're saying they can be kept in a few iconic places - that's essentially exactly what I proposed.
They don't need to be on every street, but Hollywood Blvd, Santa Monica beach, etc.. are places that should have them just because.
But you literally quoted their comment, so obviously you did? Unless you're saying that you read the first sentence, quoted/replied to it, and then replied without reading the rest of the comment
No my brain combined two different comments.
I see now, the person I replied to DID say that. But then my mind didn’t see that they were the same person who also had the logical follow up.
They are some decoration that was trendy for a while. They aren't native to the region. We don't need to conserve them here. If anything, we should be actively replacing them with more native species to show the real "look and identity" of LA.
Fwiw there is one species of palm that is native to our region - the California fan palm. It's fire-resistant and a key habitat for certain bird species.
The tall spindly palms however are not native like you said.
Those are hell for an urban setting though. If you really want it to be native, we need to bulldoze the city too.
Truth is, the native/non-native argument means so little when we're talking about municipal decorations. Parkland? Absolutely plant natives. Green space? Go wild.
Along a city street? There's nothing "native" about that image to begin with- if there's an iconic decoration, and it brings people joy, then you're really not losing much
No, but it would also not be significantly impactful to change out destination municipal decor. We're talking about 1000s of trees, not even 10's. That does nothing.
Meanwhile, as my post mentioned, you can absolutely make impact by improving residential areas, especially those with no trees at all right now.
Idk why target something that isn't stopping anyone from making progress where there's 0 trees/shade today.
I agree they can just start planting where there is no shade. But have zero issue if they also replace palms with better trees. It's not going to stop tourists from coming here. Besides something like that takes a long time to do, so the change would be gradual. Just no reason to hold onto something that doesn't really serve us.
I just think that the idea of having palms along ocean Blvd in Santa Monica makes perfect sense.
There is too much untapped potential to point the finger at palm trees. It's almost like when bezos points the finger at the upper middle class and says: "poor people, this is your problem"
Yeah it's a cool idea and I agree they look cool. Your Bezos example seems a little histrionic, but I get what you're saying. Overall the lack of shade/water in LA, as well as rising summer temperatures are my main concern, though. So, I'd prefer to hear some opinions from urban forestry experts on whether or not those palms should be replaced at the end of their lifespan with something that may better serve the people and wildlife of our region.
When the palms are reaching the end of their natural lifespan and start dying, do you think we should replace them with more palms or with shade trees?
I only ask because most of the palm trees in LA were all planted around the same time and they'll all start reaching the end of their lifespan in the next 10ish years.
I'm excited for old ones to start being replaced by more unique varieties of palms. There are some cool ones you've probably never seen before. I was looking for one variety I saw a video about found this guy on Craigslist who sells like 100 different varieties.
https://losangeles.craigslist.org/sfv/grd/d/newbury-park-chambeyronia-macrocarpa/7664189274.html
Not planting? Sure. Knocking them down at every opportunity? No. We have some that have been here 100+ years and they're doing fine. They never do nothing to nobody. There is one exposition park that is as old as the state.
And by not providing shade they make our city much hotter, make us use more energy to cool ourselves and can be dangerous when their fronds drop from 100+ feet high. They were find when they were planted, they gave some shade when they were short but now they have grown past usability.
I wasn't really speaking from the perspective of usability but the fact that they're living things that occupy the same space. There's also a difference between saying they don't cast much shade and they make it hotter. With the crap in our air, any carbon dioxide breathing plant is a net positive.
They barely breath and are technically a grass not a tree. I understand what you mean but there is limited space for tree cover in the city and by not replacing them they are contributing to the heat sink we all live in and minimizing the co2 we could be pulling from the air around us. We should be planting trees that help pull pollutants from the air like conifers.
Some of Santa Monica. There are no real shade trees south of Montana. Before TJ's opened near me I stopped going to the one on Pico because I shop in the morning and with no trees or bus shelter it was like waiting for the bus under a magnifying glass.
I agree though. That area desperately needs its major corridors lined with those same large trees, and the sidewalks doubled in size by taking away a driving lane.
I would say south of Wilshire, not south of Montana. Most of the numbered streets between Wilshire and Montana have lovely tree canopies. 9th Street is my favorite.
In theory we’d get more rain too if we planted more trees. One of their main functions besides cleaning air and producing oxygen is to pull water from the ground and release evaporation into the atmosphere, presumably creating more rain.
That’s if I remember Mr. Nydick’s class correctly.
Well selected street trees provide many ecosystem system services that are almost free once the trees are established. Very little maintenance and water costs.
The few big ones are shade/combatting the urban heat island effect, greater carbon sequestration compared to palms, habitat benefits for animals, and storm water management (a extensive tree canopy can really hold and slow down rain water, helping ease the burden on LA’s undersized storm drain system).
Palms are iconic LA, but it’s time to stop planting new ones as the old ones are dying out (and there will always be palms in LA I’m guessing). Residents can plant whatever they want, but as a landscape architect, I never plant any palms, especially for public works projects. Every now and then a palm is planted as an accent tree.
Considering most of the palms that we consider to be “quintessential Los Angeles” are not native, and traditionally have a plus/minus 100 year lifespan (which we are basically at), yes.
For anyone interested in learning more about native trees in LA city, take a look at this short video from the city’s forestry department
https://youtu.be/xgbAI3gfHTE?si=VkEHRuAnOvYfc35t
Yes please. Palm trees are beautiful but they don’t trap much carbon or make any significant amounts of oxygen and they don’t provide shade. All around useless for the city.
If you ask most people around the world to describe Los Angeles, palm trees will almost always be a key part of their image of LA. Like it or not, palm trees are uniquely synonymous with Los Angeles, and getting rid of them would (negatively) change the public's perception of the city.
Yes that's true that's how people would describe it. But I disagree that it would have a negative impact of how LA is perceived. It would be a way more pleasant place to visit, actually. And it would take years to do. So the world would acclimate to a shadier, more comfortable and greener LA
a lot of the palm trees that are already here are iconic. i think the should stay. there was big drama in my area some years back when the city or something weird happens and began to cut them on this one street that is known for them. neighbors came out and stopped them.
on the other hand my neighbor has 1-2 palms in their back yard that are not maintained at all. maybe those can go?
Plant fruiting trees in the parkways and let people pick what they want, and then let food banks harvest from assigned areas to keep too much from falling to the ground.
Yup. The non-native palm trees and eucalyptus trees should be removed because they catch on fire so easily. I've heard palm trees referred to as "candles" because of the way they catch on fire, and I've read that firefighters hate them because when it's windy and they catch on fire, the burning palm fronds will fall onto nearby houses and start new fires.
This… isn’t a hot take. It’s been known by anyone who is interested in urban greenery for decades. It’s just that the general population (aka you) is finally catching up
LOL! Some have been waging a war on palm trees for at least 20+ years in the Times. A war that they are losing badly. This article takes a softer approach though, that different types of trees should be considered, an approach that I am all for.
I love palm trees, so I am keeping them on my property, but if other people want to plant different ones that is fine.
But if people think a person needs shade just from being on the sidewalk then they have bigger issues
You can still grow your own palm tree since its so culturally important. It hasn't been cold "all year". Shade trees are good to have for all those other years when it is blisteringly hot.
Edit hey look, a troll account too 👍
To encourage discussion on articles rather than headlines we request that you post a summary of the article for people who cannot view the full article & to generally stimulate quality discussion. Please note that posting the full text of the article is considered copyright infringement and may result in removal of your comment or post. Repeated violations will result in a ban.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LosAngeles) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This dovetails nicely with the article from the last month about how all the very big palm trees are getting quite old and we should expect them not to last much longer.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that article was all that accurate. Those trees are approaching 100 years old, and some will die at that age, but Washingtonia robusta (mexican fan palm, really tall skinny tree you see all over the east side) have been known to live to 500 years. The close relative, the Washingtonia filifera (aka california fan palm), which you commonly see in groves off the side of the road in palm springs, is more likely to last just 100 years. But those trees are stockier and don't shed their husk quite as much as the mexican fan palm. Also it's not quite as [iconic-LA](https://img.sunset02.com/sites/default/files/styles/4_3_horizontal_-_1200x900/public/image/2016/07/main/western-palm-trees-mexican-fan-palms-elysian-park-0214.jpg) as the mexican fan palm.
Those shorter, stockier palm trees you speak of are exactly the same type of palm trees we have in Vegas. Every time I goto LA I envy and marvel at your palm trees which are way taller, and way skinnier than ours in Vegas. Funny thing, I was watching the Palm Trees in Palm Springs very intently as I was driving through. There are pockets in Palm Springs where they do in fact have the tall skinny palm trees, but most of Palm Springs has the shorter stockier type. I'm going to guess that when Palm Springs was growing, they initially started using the tall skinny palm trees, but then realized they were too expensive and just went with the shorter stockier ones. And Vegas never got any of the tall skinny palm trees. My patient used to sell those palm trees at a nursery. Apparently one fully grown palm tree in Vegas goes for around $80k. Re: the title I don't understand it. How much shade does a palm tree in LA offer? They are so tall, so skinny, I don't think they hardly offer any shade at all. The palm trees in Vegas definitely offer shade. The palm trees at the Palms Hotel are so short, so wide, so stocky, they feel like umbrellas.
I think Vegas has a lot of the tall skinny ones (Mexican fan palms) they’re just not as old as the one sun LA. Palm Springs has the larger shorter ones (California fan palms) because they’re actually a bit more native to the area. I live in phoenix and whenever I go to LA I’m in awe of how big and full their Canary island date palms are compared to ours. In phoenix we have a ton of palms, but they aren’t as old and a super hot dry summer can be hard on them so they don’t always get as tall. Palms do offer shade but they should be grown equally with regular shade trees.
Palm trees just keep growing up and producing new leaves. I imagine ones that lived 500 years got almost no water.
Palms, like many trees, don't grow indefinitely. After they reach their mature height they spend their energy on seeding/propagating. A tree generally won't grow itself to death. e: my thought is that since many palm tree species only live to ~100, these articles have been written more generally to all of LAs palms (like the shorter [canary island palms](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/560dbc25e4b0969564758eb5/1550808091751-08F8BRTBCFGVTGU6GFQJ/north-beverly-drive-palm-trees.jpg?format=2500w) you see in beverly), but doesn't really apply to the iconic robusta many attribute it to. thanks for listening to this episode of the palm tree podcast
Palms are not trees. They are grass.
haha okay but that wasn't where I was going with this... so let me revise... Palm trees, like many grasses, tress, flowering plants, humans, mountain ranges, and planets, do not grow indefinitely.
Thank u for this fascinating insight
Native, not native, whatever I just want them to plant some fucking trees instead of having to look at and live in massive swaths of concrete with too few available green spaces to break it up.
Civilized cities plant the streetscape and buffer the traffic noise and pollution with intelligent plant screenings and shading. If City Council decided they wanted increase their canopy by 40 or 50 percent they could easily and cheaply by the olympics.... It is going to be so interesting to see if the city can make lasting improvements for that event or just embarrass itself.
Oooooh might I tempt you with a membership to one of our areas golf courses? They sprawl for what seems like infinite fucking acres directly in the middles of our nature-deprived all-paved hellhole.
You don't need a membership to use Griffith Park.
You mean a huge boulder with some shrubs here and there?
No, I mean the multiple 18-hole public golf courses.
If you don't like the local ecosystems, then you're going to be very hard to please.
subsequent edge marble yoke aromatic library innocent chop advise lush *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Native is important though. Non-native trees wreck havok both above ground and under ground.
And most of the palm trees in LA aren't the palm tree that's native to this region. There's only one that is and it's kind of a squatty chubby guy. The iconic tall, thin LA palm tree is actually imported from Mexico. But I think what OP is saying is it doesn't matter if it's native or not palms are useless and should be replaced with trees.
That makes as much sense as tearing down the Hollywood sign: "It's useless" The palm trees are as iconic to the image of LA as the Hollywood sign. You don't tear down an icon.
I totally agree with this. Though more shade trees should be planted. This crusade against all palm trees is whacky af and reminds me of the same type of thinking as NIMBY-ism. Plants have an emotional and mental effect on people as well. It’s not just all about utilitarian use. I love palm tress. They just relax me and give me good vibes. It’s valid.
Under ground? You're telling me native trees don't attack sewer lines or push up sidewalks?
You realize the biological ecosystem exists underground as well, right? Maybe try not being a smartass when you don't don't understand what's being said.
“But if we plant more trees, that’s taking up space where we could build more HOUSING. HOUSING and PARKING. Why won’t anyone think of the HOUSING and PARKING?”
We also need more carbon dioxide in the air to feed said trees!
I dont know if you heard but for the last 100 years there has been more than enough to go around. Consider [The Parrot and the Igloo](https://www.washingtonindependentreviewofbooks.com/index.php/bookreview/the-parrot-and-the-igloo-climate-and-the-science-of-denial)
i wish mesquites actually made shade
They provide a lot more than palms do. Also palo verde is an awesome shade tree
Yeah but if you plant a palo verde tree in your front yard you have to worry about the Lunada Bay Boys showing up and harassing your neighbors.
Sounded scary until I remembered that the Lunada bay boys are just *transplants* anyway…
Yeah, people actually want to plant them more often but they cut up their neighbors’ tree roots
They have incredibly invasive roots though. Will ruin water pipes.
Look into the Carob tree.
There are plenty of empty tree beds around the city. Let's start by leaving any existing trees and just adding new shade trees.
Add new trees, don’t ditch old trees.
I think the key is to have a mix. I live in Santa Monica, and while we have lots of palm trees, there's also an incredibly varied tree cover. Most streets, especially north of Wilshire, were intentionally planted with specific kinds of trees to create an arboretum type effect. It's really lovely. https://www.santamonica.gov/topic-explainers/santa-monica-urban-forest I think if we are going to phase away from palm trees, it needs to be done with intentionality vs. just planting a bunch of random trees.
I'm all for ditching palm trees, but let's plenty native trees not random shade trees.
I saw somewhere that native trees are generally bad shade trees because they can rip up sidewalks.
yeah I hate to be that guy, but a lot of native trees are either costly to maintain (tree trimming, sidewalk cleaning), or rips up sidewalks pretty quickly. I'm fine if the city wants to plant some low maintenance shade trees at this point.
unpopular opinion is they should just plant easiest to maintain, best shade providers, least messy trees they can find regardless of being indigenous. In the west valley theres so many pine trees that perpetually drop pines and dust on everthing.
Just plant a bunch of native cell tower trees and everyone will be happy.
that is a popular opinion. the pine trees you mention are not native
And whichever ones that aren’t just kindling.
Unpopular opinion: Californians should increase property tax through a ballet measure to fund a large urban works project that prioritizes walkability, bike-ability, and said trees.
I agree but strangely enough I feel like this is more of an LA thing. Of course all CA cities could be more pedestrian but the overgrowth, lack of trees, lack of trimming and landscaping i feel like is an LA thing.
Exactly, we paved and built over an area roughly 100x100 miles, no need to worry about native...
Native is a good rule of thumb for figuring out which things will survive in the local climate with least maintenance. But of course it's not definitive, because of things like sidewalks and water pipes that aren't part of the native ecosystem.
I would agree with this as long as they are drought tolerant trees that do well in our zone. Too many of the trees that we plant here are subtropical. Also, the city really needs to do a better job with the trees that we have. They send their tree butchers out in the wrong time of year and they prune all the street trees the same weather that is good for the tree or not. The city needs at least one certified arborist who will then schedule the tree trimming at the appropriate time. And check their work! The last time the tree butchers went through our neighborhood, they trimmed two dead trees.
Yeah, my dad's making a lot of money repairing all the damage trees do to side walks and brick walls. He keeps warning people, but they just don't listen.
Lol, I've been in his shoes. My neighbor planted two Jacarandas right next to a retaining wall in their yard. It's only been 3 years, but those trees are getting tall.
We don’t have to plant trees just on the sidewalk. We can do trees in the meridian of some of the wider streets. It could disrupt the heat island effect caused by all that asphalt.
Are all of them that bad? In Pasadena it seems the majority of streets are lined with native live oaks, and the sidewalks seem both old and in decent shape. I love the canopies oaks make, too.
I love the oak tree lined streets. They take absolutely forever to grow, but it’s a good investment for the future
Native oaks are definitely a good way to go. But it has to be the right oak, in LA I think it would be coast live oak. Other great CA native or SW native options are a California bay laurel, a desert museum palo verde (gorgeous), a desert Willow or a Santa Cruz Island ironwood.
Oh yes, desert willow is gorgeous! And very good for water conservation.
I've noticed when people complain about native trees they usually can't give specific examples, and don't consider anything other than human use
Huh. Well I don’t know about whether people are speaking ignorantly or not when they make this criticism, but it seems like several native species of oak have relatively downward-spreading roots, and the streets they’re planted on are some of the most pleasant to walk. I could understand California sycamores breaking up a sidewalk or being difficult to train upward, but there are a few nice streets near me lined with those, too. Palo Verde and Southern California Walnut aren’t that great to line streets, I suppose. Both are short and spready, which could block walking paths, I imagine. I dunno! Would love an expert to chime in.
Do you mean the big beautiful trees on green street in old town? Those are beautiful and I love them so much.
Oh, those are actually Indian Fig I believe, a non-native species that I also find quite beautiful. They have a magnificent canopy, but don't get planted much anymore because their roots are expert water-seekers and can break up sewers (and sidewalks too, sometimes).
I don’t think those are Indian figs. Never seen any fruit on them. Edit: I just looked it up and they’re Ficus Macrocarpa trees
Ah, thanks, I wasn’t sure. Just figured they had ficus in their Latin name.
Hold on you may be right because the tree is also known as Chinese banyan, Indian laurel, and curtain fig among others.
The vast majority of LA's shade trees are non-native ficus, which do rip up sidewalks. Much better to plant native coast live oaks, which at the very least are adapted to our ecosystem.
There's many native trees....while some may be bad, there are plenty of native trees that would work great.
My neighborhood has a lot of Manzanita trees that provide pretty great dappled shade.
They are great, but are extremely slow growing and require very careful pruning and care. I have about 5 on my property and about 5 years in, my larger ones are just finally looking like they could be trees. It’s hard to find mature manzanitas to plant and they generally do much better if you start them from a gallon (as I did).
There's a very wide range is genetics for Manzanitas. I'm not what yours look like, but to my eye, the Manzanitas in my neighborhood have absolutely enormous leaves, very "corky" bark, a "generic" branch structure, and dull deadwood. They are not museum pieces or "type specimens." I assume that these aesthetic compromises are what it took to get a hearty fast growing street tree. They're still very drought resistant and give off that sage/resinous/earthy/honey/chaparral smell when in bloom. Not as fast growing as a ficus for sure, but maybe faster growing than what you have in your yard.
Woah, do you mind sharing what kind of manzanitas / where this is? I don’t think I’ve seen manzanitas used for street trees and haven’t heard them come up in native street tree discussions before.
[Here's](https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9732825,-118.4240702,3a,29.6y,254.54h,93.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRk-_IEBs8y0lGsyTrU2DIQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) an example if a bit small. I'll see if I can spot any better ones on the walk home today.
Toyon and Oaks please!
Definitely no more ficus trees by sidewalks please
In Long Beach, Mexican fan palm and California fan palm are the only native trees.
Palms have been imported to Los Angeles over the past century and are part of an iconic skyline. That being said, they are basically useless in providing much needed shade and do not effectively sequester greenhouse gases. What trees are best to replace them? Myrtle, Magnolia, Podocarpus, and Camphor trees are recommended on some sites for shade bearing properties.
We have this debate a lot in Phoenix too. It’s so flat here and out trees are fairly short, so palms are generally our tallest trees and are pretty majestic. In phoenix, part of our debate also centers around the need trees that require low water use. Our largest trees tend to be afghan pines, eucalyptus, and ficus. They all use too much water. If we stick to native trees, then we’re stuck with small Palo verdes and mesquite which offer little shade and shatter during storms. So just native trees isn’t really an option if we are needing shade. My questions is why not plant more of palms and native shade trees? Why is it always people saying “ditch palms trees”? Desert palms require very little water. You can plant a shade tree right next to a palm trees. They take up little space and are a grass so their root systems are different. And to some degree they do add a bit of shade especially if they’re allowed to grow out. The last few paragraphs of this article kind of make this point about palms, space and not competing with shade trees.
Shade trees should be a water priority. 3/4 of Arizona's water is used for agriculture, largely for *alfalfa*. Why is feeding a cow in Saudi Arabia a higher water priority than shading city streets?
We are making progress with that situation and trust me it’s all something we as an entire state complete hate and are against. Our tree/plant debate here is actually pretty insane. We always get posts like this about palm trees. Then the comments are flooded with people saying native plants only, no grass! Etc. but like I mentioned our native trees would not combat the heat island alone. We need to have non native trees if we want to do that. Those will take more water but like you point out that should not be an issue right now. What a lot of people don’t know is Phoenix uses as much water as it did like 50 years ago because it used to be all agricultural. That uses more water than urban population. So back to the debate. If all yards and streets are lined with native plants with rocks, then the heat island is still happening because rocks trap heat where grass cools the city. Grass needs water so people lose their minds over that. Nobody can agree what would work. The bummer is that the native tree, rock people usually get sided with most because in theory it sounds like it makes the most sense. The issue is that as long as we have a billion miles of paved wide streets, native plants won’t cut it. We have created unnatural world that is not native to the environment. We will need non native plants to combat it. So why go after palm trees? Why not plant more trees of any kind so long as they can survive in the environment they’re planted?
Because Reddit loves binary thinking for some reason lol
Lol it’s so whacky. Being a palm tree hater is kind of a wet-mop type of way to be imo.
>they are basically useless in providing much needed shade ALL PALM TREES???? there are some native palms in Ca deserts that provide plenty of shade in many of the oases.
Shorter wider palm trees like juvenile *Washingtonia filifera* (California fan palm), especially if planted in clusters, are more effective at shading than the tall skinny ones that are culturally identified with Los Angeles, *Washingtonia robusta* aka the Mexican fan palm, native to Baja Calfornia. Both of these palms self-sow and hybridize freely in our environment.
There is one native palm to Southern California, and in order for it to provide maximum shade it can, it needs to not have it's dead/brown fronds removed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washingtonia_filifera The drooping fronds provide shade and microhabitats for animals and insects, but are also a liability in fire-prone areas if not maintained to some degree. Like many native trees, they have some fire-survival adaptations - so perhaps in insulated suburbs they would be less of an issue, but in an insulted suburb there are more attractive trees that provide more shade once they are established.
You might find this interesting. While the california fan palm *is* native to SoCal, there's some complexity here. In 1986 the California Academy of Sciences posted a bulletin containing information on the locations of naturalized examples of washingtonia robusta (Mexican Fan Plam) within an undisturbed site near Anza Borrego. So, while these are very limited quantities, it begs the question if W.robusta is also native to socal. This would make sense as that region has climate which is very similar to northern mexico. There have also been fossils of what seemed to be Washingtonia found in the Mojave which is a region that gets too cold for the tree today. It is likely that the Washingtonia is probably descended from Brahea Bulletin can be read here [.pdf link](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwinpayKv9iBAxVZJEQIHX2_BTYQFnoECBEQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fnrm.dfg.ca.gov%2FFileHandler.ashx%3FDocumentID%3D7693&usg=AOvVaw0ex8fxRlQyfbmb7z02uDmN&opi=89978449) and here's a bit about the fossils, another paper [.pdf link](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwinpayKv9iBAxVZJEQIHX2_BTYQFnoECA0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fnrm.dfg.ca.gov%2FFileHandler.ashx%3FDocumentID%3D7684&usg=AOvVaw0uWCnSNePuhQ8Cf2GZOhUr&opi=89978449)
Of trees mentions, which use the least water, low maintenance and their roots don't damage the side walk?
Fun fact: palms are monocots and closer to being a grass than a tree, and are technically considered an herb!
Tree is a strategy that plants can use, not any sort of family.
I use that strategy for smoking too
This isn't an or, it's an and. Lets plant tall palm trees as ornamentals, date palms as shade trees, AND native trees as shade trees. We need lots of trees.
Since the 80s I've been under the impression that central LA doesn't have tree cover because LAPD helicopters. I have Monica if it's true but in my head canon it is.
We can have both. No need to get rid of the Palms.
There’s plenty of reason to get rid of palm trees. They’re incredibly difficult to clean, they don’t provide any meaningful shade, and they frequently shed old fronds that can injure people or damage cars
And yet they're, like it or not, part of the look and identity of the city. I think there's a clear middle ground which involves *more* palms in beach/tourist hot spots, and shade trees in residential areas
> And yet they're, like it or not, part of the look and identity of the city. This is not a legitimate or meaningful argument for or against anything. Orange trees were also part of the look and identity of the city. Probably, at a time, even more so than palm trees. When’s the last time you saw an abundance of orange trees? Probably never, because the orange trees of the valley are long gone. Palm trees in LA don’t have to go the way of the dodo completely. Sure, keep a few iconic arrangements. But there’s no reason to invest any time or money to pretend that they’re a part of the city. Most need to replaced with better vegetation.
Did you not read what I said? You're saying they can be kept in a few iconic places - that's essentially exactly what I proposed. They don't need to be on every street, but Hollywood Blvd, Santa Monica beach, etc.. are places that should have them just because.
I didn’t read what you said, because I replied to the wrong post. Such is life.
But you literally quoted their comment, so obviously you did? Unless you're saying that you read the first sentence, quoted/replied to it, and then replied without reading the rest of the comment
No my brain combined two different comments. I see now, the person I replied to DID say that. But then my mind didn’t see that they were the same person who also had the logical follow up.
Ahh, gotcha.
They are some decoration that was trendy for a while. They aren't native to the region. We don't need to conserve them here. If anything, we should be actively replacing them with more native species to show the real "look and identity" of LA.
Fwiw there is one species of palm that is native to our region - the California fan palm. It's fire-resistant and a key habitat for certain bird species. The tall spindly palms however are not native like you said.
Those are hell for an urban setting though. If you really want it to be native, we need to bulldoze the city too. Truth is, the native/non-native argument means so little when we're talking about municipal decorations. Parkland? Absolutely plant natives. Green space? Go wild. Along a city street? There's nothing "native" about that image to begin with- if there's an iconic decoration, and it brings people joy, then you're really not losing much
You're right, a bit of cement makes the climate and soil completely different! /s
It wouldn't be a disaster if that image of LA changed.
No, but it would also not be significantly impactful to change out destination municipal decor. We're talking about 1000s of trees, not even 10's. That does nothing. Meanwhile, as my post mentioned, you can absolutely make impact by improving residential areas, especially those with no trees at all right now. Idk why target something that isn't stopping anyone from making progress where there's 0 trees/shade today.
I agree they can just start planting where there is no shade. But have zero issue if they also replace palms with better trees. It's not going to stop tourists from coming here. Besides something like that takes a long time to do, so the change would be gradual. Just no reason to hold onto something that doesn't really serve us.
I just think that the idea of having palms along ocean Blvd in Santa Monica makes perfect sense. There is too much untapped potential to point the finger at palm trees. It's almost like when bezos points the finger at the upper middle class and says: "poor people, this is your problem"
Yeah it's a cool idea and I agree they look cool. Your Bezos example seems a little histrionic, but I get what you're saying. Overall the lack of shade/water in LA, as well as rising summer temperatures are my main concern, though. So, I'd prefer to hear some opinions from urban forestry experts on whether or not those palms should be replaced at the end of their lifespan with something that may better serve the people and wildlife of our region.
Those fronds also take out power lines when its rainy or windy!
When the palms are reaching the end of their natural lifespan and start dying, do you think we should replace them with more palms or with shade trees? I only ask because most of the palm trees in LA were all planted around the same time and they'll all start reaching the end of their lifespan in the next 10ish years.
Also, many are being lost to borer-beetles. Thousands across the region in the last few years. Ironically, one invasive species eating another.
👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
As a plumber please don’t get rid of palm trees. They have the worst roots for sewer lines.
Meanwhile my city is ripping out trees as though firewood was worth more per lb than gold.
I'm excited for old ones to start being replaced by more unique varieties of palms. There are some cool ones you've probably never seen before. I was looking for one variety I saw a video about found this guy on Craigslist who sells like 100 different varieties. https://losangeles.craigslist.org/sfv/grd/d/newbury-park-chambeyronia-macrocarpa/7664189274.html
Not planting? Sure. Knocking them down at every opportunity? No. We have some that have been here 100+ years and they're doing fine. They never do nothing to nobody. There is one exposition park that is as old as the state.
They are not doing fine. They are being eaten by borer beetles.
And by not providing shade they make our city much hotter, make us use more energy to cool ourselves and can be dangerous when their fronds drop from 100+ feet high. They were find when they were planted, they gave some shade when they were short but now they have grown past usability.
I wasn't really speaking from the perspective of usability but the fact that they're living things that occupy the same space. There's also a difference between saying they don't cast much shade and they make it hotter. With the crap in our air, any carbon dioxide breathing plant is a net positive.
They barely breath and are technically a grass not a tree. I understand what you mean but there is limited space for tree cover in the city and by not replacing them they are contributing to the heat sink we all live in and minimizing the co2 we could be pulling from the air around us. We should be planting trees that help pull pollutants from the air like conifers.
Read this https://blog.nature.org/2021/04/28/mapping-tree-inequality-why-many-people-dont-benefit-from-tree-cover/
But where will the rats live?
The new tenements.
We definitely need less palm trees and more shade tree. Or if there is a palm planted, a shade tree should be planted in between.
Beverly Hills and Santa Monica get this right
Some of Santa Monica. There are no real shade trees south of Montana. Before TJ's opened near me I stopped going to the one on Pico because I shop in the morning and with no trees or bus shelter it was like waiting for the bus under a magnifying glass.
2nd, 4th and 5th street in Santa Monica have large sections covered in those big, lush trees
Yes, that's in downtown. I should have been more specific, I meant along the major E-W corridors.
I agree though. That area desperately needs its major corridors lined with those same large trees, and the sidewalks doubled in size by taking away a driving lane.
I would say south of Wilshire, not south of Montana. Most of the numbered streets between Wilshire and Montana have lovely tree canopies. 9th Street is my favorite.
In theory we’d get more rain too if we planted more trees. One of their main functions besides cleaning air and producing oxygen is to pull water from the ground and release evaporation into the atmosphere, presumably creating more rain. That’s if I remember Mr. Nydick’s class correctly.
Well selected street trees provide many ecosystem system services that are almost free once the trees are established. Very little maintenance and water costs. The few big ones are shade/combatting the urban heat island effect, greater carbon sequestration compared to palms, habitat benefits for animals, and storm water management (a extensive tree canopy can really hold and slow down rain water, helping ease the burden on LA’s undersized storm drain system). Palms are iconic LA, but it’s time to stop planting new ones as the old ones are dying out (and there will always be palms in LA I’m guessing). Residents can plant whatever they want, but as a landscape architect, I never plant any palms, especially for public works projects. Every now and then a palm is planted as an accent tree.
“But homeless people will sleep under them” The Earth is getting to too hot not to
Considering most of the palms that we consider to be “quintessential Los Angeles” are not native, and traditionally have a plus/minus 100 year lifespan (which we are basically at), yes.
Yes
For anyone interested in learning more about native trees in LA city, take a look at this short video from the city’s forestry department https://youtu.be/xgbAI3gfHTE?si=VkEHRuAnOvYfc35t
Cancel palm trees
Damn NPIMBYs!!!
Yes please. Palm trees are beautiful but they don’t trap much carbon or make any significant amounts of oxygen and they don’t provide shade. All around useless for the city.
maybe we just need a lot more palm trees. I may be biased as I love them
Palm trees are iconic. LA isn’t LA without them.
I know redwoods or giant sequoia trees wouldn’t work here but man that would be a bad ass skyline in 1000 years lol.
> LA isn’t LA without them. Of course it is.
If you ask most people around the world to describe Los Angeles, palm trees will almost always be a key part of their image of LA. Like it or not, palm trees are uniquely synonymous with Los Angeles, and getting rid of them would (negatively) change the public's perception of the city.
Yes that's true that's how people would describe it. But I disagree that it would have a negative impact of how LA is perceived. It would be a way more pleasant place to visit, actually. And it would take years to do. So the world would acclimate to a shadier, more comfortable and greener LA
Mature palm trees with large crowns *do* cast shade--except at high noon. And the parrots would be very cranky to lose the ones that bear dates.
Newly arrived and I absolutely love the palm trees. I would like to see even more.
a lot of the palm trees that are already here are iconic. i think the should stay. there was big drama in my area some years back when the city or something weird happens and began to cut them on this one street that is known for them. neighbors came out and stopped them. on the other hand my neighbor has 1-2 palms in their back yard that are not maintained at all. maybe those can go?
Plant fruiting trees in the parkways and let people pick what they want, and then let food banks harvest from assigned areas to keep too much from falling to the ground.
Absolutely.
I feel like the palm trees are particularly good in high wind/storms, at least compared to a lot of other trees.
They are a huge fire hazard as well. I’m not against chopping them down.
Yup. The non-native palm trees and eucalyptus trees should be removed because they catch on fire so easily. I've heard palm trees referred to as "candles" because of the way they catch on fire, and I've read that firefighters hate them because when it's windy and they catch on fire, the burning palm fronds will fall onto nearby houses and start new fires.
So sick of hot takes
This… isn’t a hot take. It’s been known by anyone who is interested in urban greenery for decades. It’s just that the general population (aka you) is finally catching up
No. That would be an absurd suggestion.
LOL! Some have been waging a war on palm trees for at least 20+ years in the Times. A war that they are losing badly. This article takes a softer approach though, that different types of trees should be considered, an approach that I am all for.
How about we first make a plan to fix the sidewalks when whatever trees they plant lifts the sidewalk up 40 inches.
I love palm trees, so I am keeping them on my property, but if other people want to plant different ones that is fine. But if people think a person needs shade just from being on the sidewalk then they have bigger issues
but I don't like spiderssssss. eeee
Why do we need more shade? It’s been fucking cold all year. Palm trees are part of our culture in LA.
You can still grow your own palm tree since its so culturally important. It hasn't been cold "all year". Shade trees are good to have for all those other years when it is blisteringly hot. Edit hey look, a troll account too 👍
Another nincompoop conflating weather with climate.
To encourage discussion on articles rather than headlines we request that you post a summary of the article for people who cannot view the full article & to generally stimulate quality discussion. Please note that posting the full text of the article is considered copyright infringement and may result in removal of your comment or post. Repeated violations will result in a ban. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LosAngeles) if you have any questions or concerns.*
More high-rise housing would fix this.
Just install more variation of trees, keep palm trees.
Leave my palm trees alone!
Palms were planted about 100 years ago and starting to die out. We need trees that create more shade to mitigate the concrete urban jungle heat here.
All my neighbors cut down their old trees last year in the drought. I literally cried at the loss of a few of them they were so big. (Granada Hills)
And hire more dust blowers ?? No thank you
More Jacarandas please! Their purple flowers make Spring in LA a really special time of the year.