The tree and machine metaphors and interplay between the two also had potential but remained unexplored. Instead the author chooses to just stretch the metaphors with fanciful speculation and hyperbolic wordplay- bah. And any thorough essay touching on the idea of performative urban forests calls for an examination of the foundation of large urban greenspaces in cities (as opposed to the predominant plaza/garden typologies that predominated prior to industrial cities) and 19th century park design paradigms (public health among them) and for examining them in this cultural/historical context.

And this quote is nothing if not a stretch- “At any drive-through of a fast food restaurant, a country road is evoked as drivers circle their way between the speaker and pick-up window amidst plants that beautify the wait for food with a pleasing, planted environment that has grown over the stains, graffiti, garbage, insects, and dust of the city”.

At any rate, you bring up good points about possible new methodologies and models. We need more landscape architecture, and we need to figure out ways of doing it that don’t rely on the capital project (your example is a good one). Of course, we still need capital projects, too.

Also of note, the environmental data that is being gathered is leading to real policy changes. In New York, new public projects are now driven by the Department of Design and Construction (DDC) “sustainable infrastructure” and “sustainable building” guidelines, as well as the new DOT street design manual. These are all real tools. Frankenpines are a curiosity at best and disheartning, like going to a zoo in the south and seeing the last polar bear on earth wallow in mud miserably.