Op-Ed Calls Density the 'Mortal Enemy of Trees'—Debate Ensues

An inflammatory article by Eric Scigliano takes Seattle's recently adopted Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA) to task for its lack of attention to the urban forest. Scigliano is clearly speaking for the trees, but in doing so also sets up a polarizing exclusion: "HALA is still a density agenda," writes Scigliano. "And density, absent special protections, is the mortal enemy of trees."

Speaking to that parenthetical caveat, Scigliano adds that the mitigation measures allowed by the city to substitute for the open space necessary to grow trees (i.e., setbacks, balconies, and green roofs) are a poor substitute for the real thing.

To many reading the article, the decision to pit density so explicitly against trees is misleading, at best. Ben Crowther quickly took to The Urbanist, another local publication, to respond. To open the rebuttal, Crowther states that Scigliano's article "is novel in its use of environmental values to discourage one of the single greatest tools we have in promoting sustainability: dense, urban living."

After debunking the false choice between density and the urban tree canopy, Crowther points out that more people living in dense urban centers means fewer people moving to suburbs and exurbs, "fueling deforestation as sprawl expands into our meadows and foothills, replacing natural beauty with low density residential subdivision developments and strip malls."

Crowther agrees with Scigliano that the urban tree canopy is a worthy cause to support, and also diplomatically notes that Scigliano's article got a lot of things right. The false choice does seem an unfortunate overstep, when much of Scigliano's point is to debunk misreporting of tree data and suggest possible protections for trees in the face of development.