« The doctor’s empathy: Angira Patel on the humanities in medical training | Main | In the public interest: Jonathan Gottschall on the social benefits of fiction »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Patrick Huegel

While I agree with the Azubuko she has a lot to argue against to convince people this is a good idea. One of the many concerns about this issue is the fact that free food trees could attract unwanted guest in high end neighborhoods. The article has an example of this, "by residents' fears that publicly accessible fruit will attract unwelcome visitors, including homeless people whose presence is often rejected by neighbors."(Azubuko). As well as the effect of how healthy this would be. a main concern of mine personally is is this sanitary. because L.A where this is intended to happen is very air polluted. Azubuko states, "As city dwellers, we usually assume that food must be sanctioned as edible by a vendor or government authority in order to qualify as legitimate"(Azubuko). And another small reason is it could potentially hurt small businesses.

Sevinj Mirzatagi

I enjoyed reading this article because I always wondered, what if every started to plan more fruit and edible trees, would that help the starving population? Some problems addressed is pests and maintaining the edible trees, but I believe if a community came together and handled these small issues, it can help solve larger issues, like hungry people.


I appreciate this idea, but I think its ability to implement is relatively low. The planting of fruit trees in public areas is not the same as the large-scale planting of orchards. Planting in public areas requires a lot of manpower and material resources to complete, which will result in waste. And the fruit trees are not fruitful all year round. This results in the waste of either no one picking up during the mature season or too many people coming to pick up and cause confusion. This will result in bad results.

Lawrence Bethea

I agree with Azubuko. I agree with the fact she has a huge point in here argument that food trees should be free especially in big urban city's like L.A, New York, Philadelphia, etc. This could even help the obesity problem because natural foods and fruits would be more accessible to the community. But, then again it could be a bad idea for the community to have them because people from other communities would come around and maybe they’ll start taking others people food and fruits without asking it could be a lot of wrong and a lot of rights at the same time.


In this article they talk about thinking about other circumstances other than a trees beauty before planting it. I think that they should consider if this tree can grow something such as a fruit or nut so people of the community can freely pick in eat it, then the tree is more beneficial in more than one way. If I found a tree with fruit on it in a public place I would pick it if I was hungry and needed a snack or if I was thirsty. I wouldn't go out of my way to find this resource but some people might if they is their only source of food in their community. This is where the question of if this really is worth it planting a tree that grows fruit because some people might take advantage of it, but I think it is a terrific idea and can only make a community a place.


I believe that changing the city’s trees can bring more benefits to people. According to Azubuko’s essay “Edible city: Privileging tree aesthetics misses the opportunity to feed our urban food supply.” The edible city talks about the city plant fruit tree, and the fruit became people’s food. Azubuko writes the edible city is an idea that can balance people’s food and city’s decoration. People think the city trees main function is for the city decoration. When people plant the trees, they never think that the tress will boring anther benefits. In fact, some tree’s fruit feed animals, and these can help people to change the environment. First, the Moreton Bay fig trees feed some bird. The Moreton Bay fig trees are an Australia tree. People move the trees to Southern California because the trees are beautiful. They never consider the trees’ fruit will feed animals. However, the trees’ fruit is obvious benefits for animals. If people can plant more fruit trees, these will grant the benefits. Second, “Endless Orchard” is a great idea for the city. “Endless Orchard” promotes that people plant more fruit trees in the city., and the trees’ fruits will become clear and natural food for people. The trees will become a public orchard and people can share the orchard, so the city still has trees decoration, and people get natural food. There are distinct benefits for the people and animals. Therefore, the city should change the city’s trees. Moreover, the city trees’ law is a bigger hold-back for the “Endless Orchard.” In 2015, Los Angeles City allows people to plant fruit trees in the public parkways. Even though the city allows people to plant trees, the trees have a size request. If the size exceeds the city limited, people will cost about $400 to apply for a permit. Also, the city requests the fruit type, which is people cannot plant any type of fruit trees. The city limited the tress’ size and type is the bigger hold-back.

Ethan Lamm

Changing public spaces for more practical use would benefit not just humans, but the environment. Currently in America, most trees planted in public areas are non-fruit-bearing, and planted for aesthetic purposes only. They provide shade, but not much else. The article, "Edible City: Privileging Tree Aesthetics Misses Opportunity to Feed Our Urban Food Supply", discusses the benefits of planting fruit-bearing trees in public spaces, and replacing the ones that are there with more fruit-bearing trees. The article argues that these trees would still provide shade and prevent erosion, but on top of this they would provide a better food supply in urban areas. I agree, and have always liked the idea of urban improvement. Urban improvement to me does not just mean improving infrastructure, it also means improving environment and living conditions. The article also discusses allowing such fruit-bearing trees to be planted on privately owned land, due to many cities (such as Los Angeles) not allowing such trees to be planted between the sidewalk and the road. As much as I agree that this land can be used for the trees, I also see why the city may disagree. Tree roots may become a problem in the future. An example is in Wilmington, North Carolina, where I used to live. Many roads had oak trees planted on them a long time ago to provide shade. However, now that the trees have matured and grown, the roots are breaking the road apart, which is costly to repair and can cause traffic issues. Food is a valuable resource to humans, so why would we plant so many trees without purpose? Turning the world into an infinite orchard has its benefits, and could be a key step into the future for the people of America.

niki phan

In “Edible City: Privilege Tree Aesthetics Misses Opportunity to Feed Our Urban Food Supply,” Azubuko argues that it would be beneficial to everyone if the city considers replacing non-edible plants with edible plants. The article states that the main reason for flora in Urban cities is to provide shade, decoration, and erosion control. Azubuko considers how edible flora could positively affect Urban cities, such as, providing a better food supply; however, the author also argues how having an unregulated food supply may bring unwanted visitors such as homeless people. I agree the general idea seems to be a excellent opportunity to improve food supply without removing the primary purposes of the flora; however, the possibility of this idea appears very unlikely. Not only would it take a lot of money and convincing for these plans to actually work, but there are very few positive aspects the go along with this idea as well. Although the trees will produce more food, who is to say anyone will eat the food that the trees will provide. The article states people may believe that the fruit from the trees could possibly be poisoned. It’s true what they say, don't take food from strangers... or random trees in the middle of a city.

Dakota Vallone

In “Edible City: Privilege Tree Aesthetics Misses Opportunity to Feed Our Urban Food Supply,” Azubuko identifies how the city of Los Angeles has many types of trees. The issue being that they are all for aesthetic purposes, rather than planting trees that could benefit the city's population. For instance, planting edible fruit trees. Azubuko states that 20 years ago was the best time to plant trees, and the second best time is now. This topic raises the question of what would happen if we were to do so? Could the idea of planting trees for food versus aesthetic help the population?

Timothy Langone

Azubuko imposes a relevant and argumentative concern to Californias street plantings as new measures are taken to create a green community. Many existing trees along roadsides, parking lots, and highways create a hassle and require routine maintenance regarding the debris beneath the canopy. A Moreton Bay Fig tree enhances UCLA’s Dickens Court. This species was introduced to California thus providing little ecological benefits to Californias biodiversity. Therefore, the abundance in indigenous flora and fauna species is diminished. For this reason, various organisms dishonor the fruit due to its foreign origin. Unwanted debris remains on walkways; “But the first time my shoes hit the sticky mess on the walkway underneath them, I started to wonder why trees like these were planted there” (Azubuko). Organizations such as Fallen Fruit aim to improve the functionality of the vegetation surrounding the city. Azubuko sets forth a solution to cope with routine maintenance trees require to keep the city clean. An abundance of public orchards can provide free food to individuals in need. The fruit is utilized before they create unwanted messes. She denoted various complications that may arise during the process. I agree with the numerous drawbacks because political restraints will prevent street trees from being planted only if they are approved. Not all agriculturally significant plant species are environmentally appropriate for sustainable efforts. Economic cost to acquire a legal stance may outweigh the trees' benefits.


In this article Azubuko brings the idea of planting fruit trees in public spaces to help produce food and promote greenery of the community. This would be replacing the other flora and fauna trees in parking lots and other public spaces. Though this would be a problem as tree require maintenance and fruits can create a mess like the figs tree on Azubuko's campus. Though the solution is that the free food from the fruit trees will be picked by people due to their organic state it can not be certain that no fruits will fall and make a mess. Personally the main problem with picking fruit trees from the parking lot is the sanitary conditions since that air is constantly surrounded by fumes from the cars. Also due to it being in a public space there is no certainty that the water provided for it to grow is necessarily clean. Picking fruit from a private property is different since the tree most likely had less contamination of unknown substances in the soil and clean water. Though the idea from Azubuko can help the community but I think the costs outweighs the benefits it will bring.


I agree with Azubuko. I think fruits get way little recognition. Some people don’t even like fruits. Maybe some people just can’t afford them, but they definitely need more credit and should be shown off more. I personally like fruits plus they are healthy so I don’t know why one wouldn’t want to get something so fresh and natural in their body. Some people prefer processed foods, which is not a surprise because we love in America but maybe you can do both. Maybe you can get in atleast one fruit a day. Couldn’t hurt to get refreshed.

Roshni D.

1)My view on this subject is in alignment with the author’s. I agree with the idea of growing our food supply and improving urban environments by planting more fruit trees in public locations. The plants that currently make up most of public land do make for good photos, however, it would be better if these plants could also feed animals who have created habitats in surrounding areas. These plants would serve a greater purpose to all the animals and humans that visit. This idea is a concern to the city because it may attract unwanted crowds, such as people who cannot afford food and shelter. People may steal the fruits off the trees for the sake of their well-being, but what about the people that carve into trees? Most people aren’t aware of the fact that carving into a tree can severely damage and possibly even kill a plant. It’s somewhat foolish for people to avoid planting fruit trees in hopes of preventing people from eating the fruits when they are making no effort to prevent people from injuring trees. From my point of view, both concepts are bad in a sense but it’s better for people to receive nutrients from a tree rather than carve into it and damage it. Making food forests and serve more functions to the environment than what they do right now. Of course, it would cost more, however, it’s for a good cause and therefore it’s worth the expense. Another reason the city does not support this idea is because of the possibility of malicious people poisoning or contaminating the fruits, however, what about fruit patches? For example, at strawberry patches people pick out their own strawberries, however, this is open to the public, which means malicious people may also be there. This doesn’t stop the city from preventing these fruit patches or open farms, so why should it prevent them from planting fruit trees in urban places? Overall, I agree with the other’s idea and believe it would be a great way to improve urban cities, as well as our food supply.

Ayesha Ahmed

Will orchards of trees push back the opportunity of feeding our urban food supply? Los Angeles has unknowingly become a city filled with trees for aesthetic reasons. By providing aesthetics to ecology, we are also providing the public benefits of an urban environment and food supply. There are many dynamics and views when it comes to the supply of food brought to our environment. Certain people prefer picking fruits in public areas. However, the efforts to make space for fresh produce on the streets is facing conflict. By providing the privilege of access to fresh fruits available to the public, people are afraid they won’t be comfortable picking fruit on the streets. People can feel as if they seem like intruders or thieves, while others consider the threat of pollution, contamination, or poor crop sanitation. It is important to consider the harm with the benefits. Freshly picked fruits may not be exposed to pesticides and fertilizers the same way as store bought fruit. Bringing produce to the public in a way that everyone is free of access can bring about many benefits to our society. This opportunity will provide the public with a better food supply. Filing the streets with trees consisting of fruits and vegetables will give access to animals as well as humans. Not only does this access bring benefits to our fellow citizens, but it also provides benefits to the community. Replacing the trees in our cities with fruit-bearing trees will attract more visitors which can be appealing to many people.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

About They Say / I Blog

  • New readings posted monthly, on the same issues that are covered in “They Say / I Say” with Readings—and with a space where readers can comment, and join the conversation.

Follow us on Twitter to get updates about new posts and more! @NortonWrite

Become a Fan