« 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 »

06/19/2018

Comments

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.

yunhuwang

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.

Hannah

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.

ShengZhou

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.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

Working...
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.

Working...

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.

Become a Fan