as for planting the trees without the permission of the resident responsible for that parkway, like I said in that previous comment, it doesn't do much good if the folks don't take care of them. we've also learned the hard way that doing things that seem additive to the hood are not always taken that way by neighbors and can cause conflict. been on the end of that a couple of times already. that said, maybe I'll stop talking about doing this and actually try it and see what folks say.
This is normal in many cities.
Trees can mean high status because
(a) you need excess land to have trees.
(b) old wealthy suburbs often have old trees (a massive old oak tree implies something).
(c) single dwelling houses that are near the city often have very old trees due to the age of the location, and can have high value because the location has now become central (due to city outskirt growth).
(d) maintaining trees costs time and money, as mentioned, so that also implies wealth (and status).
Aside: lawns are another status symbol - that is why so many people care about them so much! Think of a huge old English estate with manicured lawns, and why that is a strong symbol of wealth.
Edit: and I should say I love trees and I think they are really worthwhile, independent of any associated status!
Yep, check out a satellite view of Atherton, CA vs Redwood City next door. A huge contrast.
That's all I got after 5 minutes on Google maps.
on our street there are countless trees that were likely planted decades ago, but a lack of care by the residents makes them mere shadows of their potential.
and for anyone interested, LA's a great example of how trees provide a return on investment (actual dollar return outside the tremendous ecological benefits). go onto google maps and look at the satellite view. people who have never been here can point out the expensive neighborhoods because they are the greener ones.