American Forests, which is a US non-profit conservation organization, publishes something that they call a Tree Equity Score. What it effectively does is map tree cover across US cities. You can explore what that looks like, here. The score considers things like tree canopy, population density, income, race, as well as many other factors, and then produces a single score from 0 to 100. A score of 100 means that a neighborhood has achieved "Tree Equity."

There is seemingly a lot that you can glean from this score. For one, American Forests have found that income and race tend to correlate with tree canopy. Lower income neighborhoods tend to have less of it and rich neighborhoods tend to have more of it. You can start to see what that looks like in the Instagram post embedded at the top of this post. If it isn't showing up, click here.

But the other thing that is clear from these images is that rich people tend to consume more space. The richer tree-canopied neighborhoods appear to be less dense. The lots are bigger. And there are instances where the homes look to be adjacent to some large contiguous green spaces. This, of course, is a natural market outcome.

The Tree Equity Score tries to correct for this in its methodology. If a neighborhood's population density is very low (less than 2,000 people per km2), then it gets a higher tree canopy adjustment factor. It should have more trees. Conversely, if a neighborhood's population density is high (over 8,000 people per km2), then it's acceptable for there to be less trees (lower adjustment factor).

That said, it would be interesting to see a direct comparison of two neighborhoods -- one rich and one poor -- that have the exact same population densities and overall built form. I think that would speak volumes about tree inequity. I am also very curious about the global relationship between density and household incomes.

If any of you have a good source, please share it in the comment section below.

I’ve written about the Tenderloin neighborhood in San Francisco before. It’s an infamous neighborhood in the center of the city that has for decades resisted gentrification (which was the topic of my post).

But as the technology sector continues to urbanize, many fear that it’s only a matter of time before it does eventually gentrify. A new nickname has even emerged for the neighborhood: the Twitterloin.

However, a local nonprofit called the Wildflowers Institute is trying to ensure that gentrification doesn’t erase the cultural assets currently housed in the neighborhood. Through a project called “Hidden Gems”, the group is literally knocking on doors to find active artists within the community (many of whom live in single rooms) and then supporting them through fellowship programs and other investments.

What’s fascinating about their approach is that they are actively seeking out the informal activities taking place within the community – activities that would otherwise be hidden and then potentially lost. Once discovered, they then do a number of mapping exercises to keep track of this data.

As somebody who believes city building will become a lot more data driven in the future, I think this is a really interesting initiative. And as gentrification pressures continue to increase in San Francisco, I’m sure this information will help guide the discussions. You can’t account for something you don’t know exists.

If you’d like to learn more about this initiative, check out this short 4 minute video from the New York Times. I would then love to hear from you in the comment section below.

American Forests, which is a US non-profit conservation organization, publishes something that they call a Tree Equity Score. What it effectively does is map tree cover across US cities. You can explore what that looks like, here. The score considers things like tree canopy, population density, income, race, as well as many other factors, and then produces a single score from 0 to 100. A score of 100 means that a neighborhood has achieved "Tree Equity."

There is seemingly a lot that you can glean from this score. For one, American Forests have found that income and race tend to correlate with tree canopy. Lower income neighborhoods tend to have less of it and rich neighborhoods tend to have more of it. You can start to see what that looks like in the Instagram post embedded at the top of this post. If it isn't showing up, click here.

But the other thing that is clear from these images is that rich people tend to consume more space. The richer tree-canopied neighborhoods appear to be less dense. The lots are bigger. And there are instances where the homes look to be adjacent to some large contiguous green spaces. This, of course, is a natural market outcome.

The Tree Equity Score tries to correct for this in its methodology. If a neighborhood's population density is very low (less than 2,000 people per km2), then it gets a higher tree canopy adjustment factor. It should have more trees. Conversely, if a neighborhood's population density is high (over 8,000 people per km2), then it's acceptable for there to be less trees (lower adjustment factor).

That said, it would be interesting to see a direct comparison of two neighborhoods -- one rich and one poor -- that have the exact same population densities and overall built form. I think that would speak volumes about tree inequity. I am also very curious about the global relationship between density and household incomes.

If any of you have a good source, please share it in the comment section below.

I’ve written about the Tenderloin neighborhood in San Francisco before. It’s an infamous neighborhood in the center of the city that has for decades resisted gentrification (which was the topic of my post).

But as the technology sector continues to urbanize, many fear that it’s only a matter of time before it does eventually gentrify. A new nickname has even emerged for the neighborhood: the Twitterloin.

However, a local nonprofit called the Wildflowers Institute is trying to ensure that gentrification doesn’t erase the cultural assets currently housed in the neighborhood. Through a project called “Hidden Gems”, the group is literally knocking on doors to find active artists within the community (many of whom live in single rooms) and then supporting them through fellowship programs and other investments.

What’s fascinating about their approach is that they are actively seeking out the informal activities taking place within the community – activities that would otherwise be hidden and then potentially lost. Once discovered, they then do a number of mapping exercises to keep track of this data.

As somebody who believes city building will become a lot more data driven in the future, I think this is a really interesting initiative. And as gentrification pressures continue to increase in San Francisco, I’m sure this information will help guide the discussions. You can’t account for something you don’t know exists.

If you’d like to learn more about this initiative, check out this short 4 minute video from the New York Times. I would then love to hear from you in the comment section below.