Or at least won't have them for a very long time.  An interesting article from the 5/7/06 Toronto Star:

 

 

Why suburbs will never have tall trees

May 7, 2006. 07:18 AM

KENNETH KIDD

 

Drive through the outer suburbs of Toronto, and chances are you'll find a familiar scene, one replicated across the continent.

 

Behind the signs announcing a new subdivision, monstrous tractors and earth-moving equipment will be chugging across the landscape, preparing what might have been a farmer's field for a sea of houses.

 

Off to one side, there'll be a giant pile of earth — all of the topsoil that had been scraped away and set aside so the machines could grade the site for drainage, sewers and roads.

 

LINK

 

When I saw the subject line, I thought this was going to be a joke thread. Now I see it's actually a very serious issue. And if urban real estate agents and marketers were smart, they would advertise that the place to find more greenery is actually in the city and the older, established suburbs! Great find Grasscat!

Pretty fascinating!  I guess I was one of the people who thought soil is soil is soil. 

 

This explains why all of the sidewalks in German Village are getting pushed up with massive roots!  :)

Definitely, very interesting article.

It has always puzzled me why many developers will not only scrape off all that good topsoil, but often will cut down many "old growth" trees that actually could provide some of that canopy the article mentions. I know some developers will spare older trees and build around them, but that practice seems little used in most of the suburban developments I've seen around Columbus.

 

I once covered a story that had to be the ultimate irony: a small group of suburban neighbors in a subdivision north of Westerville who tried to stop a developer from cutting down an gigantic oak tree on a lot between their homes.  They talked about how they loved the shade the tree provided and the birds it attracted.  They even asked if the lot could be set aside for a small park.

 

But the developer owned the lot and despite the protests of the people who had bought his earlier homes (his customers), the tree was cut down so one more home could be built.  When it was down, I counted the rings on the stump.  This oak was just over two-hundred years old.  Think about the history that has happened in that time in Ohio.  Though there was a little damage from carpenter ants, the tree looked as though it could have last another 100 years.  All that magnificence lost for one more tract home.

I've noticed that a lot of developers in the suburbs are increasingly disregarding trees. At least in the developments i've seen that were built in the 1980s and before - the builders would save a great deal of trees from the virgin forest that was there. There are a lot of developments in virgin forest land that are cutting down virtually all the trees except for what they call a "greenspace buffer" in the last few yards of the rear of the lot. In Avon Lake this has been a huge problem in new developments. Developers give a bunch of reasons why, but it is obviously about saving costs. It is a lot easier for them to level a lot for construction when there are no trees.

It's also easier to use the riding lawnmower when there aren't any pesky trees to get in the way.

Good read.

It has always puzzled me why many developers will not only scrape off all that good topsoil, but often will cut down many "old growth" trees that actually could provide some of that canopy the article mentions. I know some developers will spare older trees and build around them, but that practice seems little used in most of the suburban developments I've seen around Columbus.

 

I once covered a story that had to be the ultimate irony: a small group of suburban neighbors in a subdivision north of Westerville who tried to stop a developer from cutting down an gigantic oak tree on a lot between their homes.  They talked about how they loved the shade the tree provided and the birds it attracted.  They even asked if the lot could be set aside for a small park.

 

But the developer owned the lot and despite the protests of the people who had bought his earlier homes (his customers), the tree was cut down so one more home could be built.  When it was down, I counted the rings on the stump.  This oak was just over two-hundred years old.  Think about the history that has happened in that time in Ohio.  Though there was a little damage from carpenter ants, the tree looked as though it could have last another 100 years.  All that magnificence lost for one more tract home.

 

I thought you were going to mention the Westerville story about the company that moved a tree (not one of those little jobby dos you see in the parking lots of Walmart, Lowes, or Home Depot, but at least a 100 years old)

 

  Speaking of soil,

 

  Before about 1890, most of the food and agricultural products consumed by a city came from about a 40 mile radius. How many subdivisions used to be farm land, or orchards, or hay fields, or grazing land?

 

  Will people ever abandon the suburbs and return to the city, especially regarding the end of cheap energy? If they do, they will have to contend with the fact that so much of the topsoil of the suburbs is gone.