Do trees really cost that much to a city? I am genuinely curious. You wouldn't think so, as they kinda take care of themselves. But maybe there are some maintenance costs I am not considering.
Do crappy cities hire crappy city planners that cut down all the trees?
Maybe it's that the richer coast cities happen to have climates that can grow more trees than the more mountainous or desert-like areas?
Trees get in the way. If you're building a road or a sewer system or other underground services, you usually can work around trees, but it's often going to be easier and cheaper to knock them down. (The same goes for building houses, which is why many cities have bylaws restricting the ability of developers to cut down trees.)
Besides what other commenters said -- street trees have to be pruned. If ey're not maintained and cause damage, the ci can be sued. And their roots can destroy sidewalks, sewers, and nearby roads (depending on species, placement, etc.).
Not saying I like the reasoning, but that's what the city says.
Based on observing my neighbors, I have come to believe that as one gets older, one tends to cut down trees and put concrete in, as a way to reduce maintenance and general loose ends and possibility for trouble. The city is that tendency writ large.
they need constant care and monitoring - especially after heavy storms or bad weather of any sort, really.
The tree lined boulevards in my city routinely disrupt traffic after monsoon rains - most are close to 40 years old, and every so often will shed a branch or three onto the road.
Depends on the tree and type of maintenance. Some monitoring and directional pruning goes a long way. In general the larger the tree the more maintenance and monitoring is required.
Do crappy cities hire crappy city planners that cut down all the trees?
Maybe it's that the richer coast cities happen to have climates that can grow more trees than the more mountainous or desert-like areas?