Re:Urban trees reveal income inequality
by adamjernst on Sunday June 03, 2012 @09:33PM
(#4062296)
Palo Alto has plenty of trees—and not coincidentally, I believe its per capita income is even higher than Mountain View's.
Yes, I saw some of Palo Alto a few years later and thought it seemed much nicer. About all I saw when I flew down to interview was the Google campus and the highway between there and SFO.
Re:Urban trees reveal income inequality
by underwater on Sunday June 03, 2012 @10:16PM
(#4062384)
I don't know of any city that could or should be judged based on the freeway from its airport.
Having said that, there are nice suburbs around Mountain View and Palo Alto but they still lacks the feeling that richer suburbs in other places have. Atherton and Hillsborough are a bit closer but they are insanely expensive.
I don't know of any city that could or should be judged based on the freeway from its airport.
Vancouver doesn't have a freeway from its airport, but it does have a train. If you were going to make judgments, this leads itself to a rather accurate one.
But yes, my impression of lacking trees was more from the Google campus than the freeway.
Allied Arts in Menlo Park - much cheaper version of Atherton.
Singapore is one such city. The East Coast Parkway is about as tree lined and beautiful as any drive can be from the airport to city center. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Coast_Parkway
I'm pretty sure the per-capita income of Mountain View is considerably higher than the per-capita income of Vancouver, but being surrounded by and infused with trees certainly makes Vancouver feel wealthier.