3 ms·

I'm not so convinced of the findings of this - value wise. Yes they are great but been many failed initiatives that lacked common sense: https://www.surreycom

by Zenst 7y ago

I'm not so convinced of the findings of this - value wise. Yes they are great but been many failed initiatives that lacked common sense: https://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/11855411.greener-pastures-for-tolworth-as-dead-trees-finally-replaced/ https://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/11855411.greener-pastures... They spent a huge amount to install a non-native tree that is effectifly a stick and they died, replaced them again and they also died, finally replaced them with something that would last and they are just saplings. The greenway was effectively getting the middle of a busy road and putting in some concrete pathing which they painted green, few flower boxes that are mostly showing off soil and that cost millions. So call me a cynical about some initiatives, but I've seen, experienced as thanks to my local council - paid for so many failed ones that to teh common lay person - lacked common sense, that when I see such reports, I just know they are not seeing the whole picture and are only used to push more expensive, ill-thought vanity projects by certain types of councils. Same council who ignores flooding in some area's and would be best solved by planting some trees, yet they refuse as they are worried about additional leaf little that may clog up the roads. For those wondering - Kingston-Upon-Thames is the area's I'm referring about. But if a council can cut down a large tree for dubious reasons and replace it with a couple of saplings that take decades to reach the same potential and in many cases, poorly chosen tree's that will die, they can trumpet their ego and say they have more trees than they cut down, yet reality shows that is far from the truth in results.

ericmay 7y ago
> install a non-native tree Well, that seems like a problem to me.
- pvaldes 7y ago
  Not really in this case. The list of native fastigiata trees available is reduced. Yew would be the closer one, but can be very problematic in public spaces
pvaldes 7y ago
There are two parts in this history. One are the current problem with wood robbers that had increased in the last decade IMHO. Old trees in public parks can be chopped and selled. Most people is not aware on how valuable is a old tree, and how expensive is its wood ... and is a low risk operation. More profitable than robbing a bank, for sure. You chop a tree at 5am, put it in a truck, and ka-ching. You can tell later that the tree fell ill suddenly, was dying, was a danger, or tell similar excuses. Nobody will battle an eye. Cash and profit. .................. The second part is the good one. Cities need to make gardens for their citizens. If you can afford it there are good reasons to start with the biggest tree available For seller is good, the more expensive the tree, the more money that you can bill to the city. For the buyer is good also. When spending public money, having instant results is a must. Valuable brownie points for the politicians in charge. Moreover, you can't just put any tree in any location. Cypress are survivors. Fit in narrow spaces and stand polluted areas and dry spells. Even if non native, are known not to be invasive, soft, non thorns at eye level, toxicity is not a problem, littering is not a big trouble, and are relatively cheap to buy and maintain. I would prefer to see a row of Amanogawa japanese cherries instead, but Cupressus is a reasonable choice for a city. > Replaced third time by saplings. No politician would plant a sapling for helping their successor in power ten years later. Not if can try with a big tree instead. But, after two fails, this is also a reasonable change of mind. Saplings stablish better in difficult places, specially when vandalism is not severe.

by Zenst 7y ago

ericmay 7y ago

> install a non-native tree Well, that seems like a problem to me.

pvaldes 7y ago
Not really in this case. The list of native fastigiata trees available is reduced. Yew would be the closer one, but can be very problematic in public spaces

pvaldes 7y ago

There are two parts in this history. One are the current problem with wood robbers that had increased in the last decade IMHO. Old trees in public parks can be chopped and selled. Most people is not aware on how valuable is a old tree, and how expensive is its wood ... and is a low risk operation. More profitable than robbing a bank, for sure. You chop a tree at 5am, put it in a truck, and ka-ching. You can tell later that the tree fell ill suddenly, was dying, was a danger, or tell similar excuses. Nobody will battle an eye. Cash and profit. .................. The second part is the good one. Cities need to make gardens for their citizens. If you can afford it there are good reasons to start with the biggest tree available For seller is good, the more expensive the tree, the more money that you can bill to the city. For the buyer is good also. When spending public money, having instant results is a must. Valuable brownie points for the politicians in charge. Moreover, you can't just put any tree in any location. Cypress are survivors. Fit in narrow spaces and stand polluted areas and dry spells. Even if non native, are known not to be invasive, soft, non thorns at eye level, toxicity is not a problem, littering is not a big trouble, and are relatively cheap to buy and maintain. I would prefer to see a row of Amanogawa japanese cherries instead, but Cupressus is a reasonable choice for a city. > Replaced third time by saplings. No politician would plant a sapling for helping their successor in power ten years later. Not if can try with a big tree instead. But, after two fails, this is also a reasonable change of mind. Saplings stablish better in difficult places, specially when vandalism is not severe.