I think good planning starts by identifying existing trees before the locations of buildings are fixed. If a site already has a healthy mature tree, one of the first questions should be whether it can be retained and what that means for the placement of new development.
It takes seconds to draw a new tree symbol on a plan. Growing a large tree takes decades. Only a substantial canopy provides significant shade, evapotranspiration and an effect on the local microclimate. A tree also needs real space both above and below ground. In a dense city, that space does not magically appear later.
The benefits of trees are also local. Finland has plenty of forest, but trees elsewhere do not shade a hot street or courtyard in another neighbourhood. The value of urban trees depends precisely on where they grow.
Landscape conditions should therefore be considered while there are still genuine choices to be made. Not after the buildings and streets have already been decided, with the trees left to fit into whatever space remains.
