I love seeing trees in more places, but for parking lots in particular they do have some downsides compared to solar panels. They often require more space; they attract birds that that poo on vehicles; and there’s a higher risk of collateral damage during windstorms. Not to mention that solar panels directly produce electricity, of course.

We absolutely should see more trees in many cities, but they introduce their own challenges in parking lots, especially if they’re placed retroactively.

> they attract birds that that poo on vehicles

I think this is a tree density problem. Most cities have a small number of trees, and they’re almost always over cars. These are trees that line streets and parking lots. Without trees, birds just have telephone poles and wires, which are also over the cars.

In San Francisco, we have a lot of trees on most of our streets, and many parks small and big, all full of trees. This means birds spread themselves out everywhere, not just over cars.

I think the true barrier to getting more trees is that individuals tend not to want to pay for and maintain trees. This includes caring for the tree, trimming it when it gets bigger, and cleaning the pollen, leaves, fruits, and branches that fall.

Don't try to make sense on Spacker News... they wouldn't lear.

If you don’t want trees near parking cars that essentially prevents trees in cities, since cities are practically one big parking lot.

> they attract birds that that poo on vehicles

The city can simply introduce lizards to manage to bird issue.