AndreaPalladio
Senior Member
Yes. Nice things cost money to maintain, and the city won't spend it. They just build things, let them deteriorate through neglect, and then replace them. Same with trees.
|
|
|
Shabby Public Realm
- Thread starter junctionist
- Start date
Yes. Nice things cost money to maintain, and the city won't spend it. They just build things, let them deteriorate through neglect, and then replace them. Same with trees.
DSC
Superstar
Member Bio
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 18,596
- Reaction score
- 25,277
- Location
- St Lawrence Market Area
We live in a City where the electorate has so terrified politicians about taxes that they are unwilling to spend $$ on anything that is not 'essential' and a top priority. If we want more & better trees, better services, proactive planning and rule enforcement and better streetscapes then we need to tell politicians that we ARE prepared to pay higher taxes to get them. If there was ever any 'gravey' that could be redistributed it is really all gone; more 'stuff' needs more $$ and more $$ means higher taxes.
AndreaPalladio
Senior Member
Yes, quite right. If we want nice things, we have to pay for them. Not whinge if a tax increase is required.
tiffer24
Senior Member
Didn't Tory promise a massive tree-planting effort during the last election campaign?
wild goose chase
Active Member
Does it really cost that much money to plant and take care of trees, as opposed to all the other infrastructure in the city?
AndreaPalladio
Senior Member
Not as much as an unnecessary elevated highway that no one will use, but, priorities.
tiffer24
Senior Member
And then, probably another 2% decrease in the city's operating budget for next year... we'll look back one day and think shabby was the best this city ever looked.
Last edited:
Skeezix
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,343
- Reaction score
- 2,688
- Location
- East of this, west of that
Yes. It's planting trees - it can be tricky in an urban environment, but it's not even remotely beyond our capabilities. There is no reason why Toronto cannot have a healthier street tree canopy. Having traditionally done a crappy job at street trees is an extremely crappy reason to just give up on such an important aspect of the streetscape. We don't need fancy granite pavers, like on Bloor, to have healthy street trees.
As has been noted, a lot of this has to do with funding. Even street trees installed as a condition of approval for nearby developments, which are paid for by private funds, tend to suffer because the City doesn't even spend sufficient money on monitoring and enforcement.
pman
Senior Member
I would suggest that Toronto's crappy history with street trees is an excellent reason for the city to give up on the effort unless something changes. And this is Toronto so nothing will ever change. While UT posters, me included, might want the city to spend more on this stuff, it's clear that the politicians we consistently elect have other ideas. I mean, we won't even spend enough to keep the TTC or public housing in a state of good repair, let alone worrying about aspiring to even mediocre public spaces. It's also pretty clear that the city is incapable of organizing utility and public realm construction and maintenance. In the case of utility work it's not even certain the city has the legal tools to enforce some degree of respect for the public realm. So, absent any real change, there's no point in throwing more money into pathetic planting efforts that are doomed to fail. If anything, all these spindly, immature, dead and dying street trees just make Toronto look even more depressing, which is saying a lot.
Skeezix
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,343
- Reaction score
- 2,688
- Location
- East of this, west of that
I can't disagree more. Doing a crappy job, and then giving up because of that crappy job, doesn't make any sense. Using that logic, the City would give up on most of its functions and we'd be living in Detroit.
Plus the fact that this isn't rocket science.
Plus the fact that this isn't rocket science.
Johnny Au
Senior Member
Meanwhile, in Five Points (aka Vaughan and Oakwood), a steel palm tree was erected a few years ago, as it is much more practical than having a real palm tree at that intersection.
Armour
Senior Member
Which, ironically, probably costs the city even more money.
Northern Light
Superstar
We've covered these issues in a few other threads.
But maybe not everyone has a chance to read those posts, so I'll try to answer some of the questions/comments here.
1. The average life a of a Toronto street tree is around 7 years (that includes all types of plantings, though the stat was last established prior to higher quality
planting conditions becoming more common. (ie. during the square box planters everywhere era).
2. The City actually does invest in new trees, all plantings are watered for their first year, sometimes for their first two. After that, absent irrigation they are on their own (rainfall).
3. If trees are planted by a developer or by third-party contractor, they are typically under warranty for 2 years from the date of planting. So if the City discovered them dead, or close to same
the contractor must replace the tree.
4. The high failure rate is a function of several things:
1) Unfavourable planting conditions, this is particularly true with the old 'square box' planters, but event he typical old covered concrete pits aren't great. The former provides far
too little room for root growth; while the latter could be better for that, but its bigger sin is denying the tree enough water.
Tree trenches or large scale, multi-tree planters are by far the best growing conditions for street trees, to see the difference they make, go look at the planters outside Maple Leaf Square at 11 York street.
They're not that old, but coming in beautifully! (so much so, that they shaded out the understory plants, the thinning may be required in a few years)
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/11...1!3m1!1s0x882b34d4d83edf17:0x694505991c491b7a
Part of providing those enhanced condition is also designing planters, where possible to end up w/less salt in them. Note the York St. example which has planter elevated above the sidewalk level, reducing salt from the road somewhat (there will still be spray), but mostly eliminating it from the sidewalk side.
The success of the larger planters is also that the trees can share soil/nutrients and water across the larger space. Some species will be more 'competitive' for
resources, but often trees in the same species will network at the root level and 'share' resources from tree to tree.
Soil conditions are crucial and that was clearly an issue at Bloor St. where the it was suggested that the initial contractor put in substandard soils. (soils w/poor drainage and inadequate
nutrients).
An important point to consider about closed in trees is that there is little or no opportunity to re-charge the nutrients in the soil naturally (as happens from decaying leaves). That's an important
bonus from larger multi-tree (open) trench planters, where the fall leaves can be left to decay, at least for a little while.
2) Species choice is crucial. I have said here repeatedly that London Plane is a poor choice for typical Toronto street conditions. It can grow here, but requires better than average conditions (like a sizeable lawn, as well as extra TLC. They really don't care for road salt either. There are various other trees that also show iffy results, Sugar Maple, while it can be amazing your backyard, or local park is not keen on typical street tree conditions, Red Maple often fares poorly, and Birches hate it (not very pollution tolerant).
There are many better choices, notably Silver Maple, most Oaks, Honey Locust, the dutch-elm resistant version of American Elm, among others.
Ashes were, historically a very good choice, which is why they are so common, particularly in parts of Scarborough and North York. The Emerald Ash Borer has unfortunately changed that reality.
3) Related to the above, diversity of choices is important. Any and every tree species is vulnerable to one or more diseases or pests. If something goes wrong (ie. Dutch Elm Disease)
and you've planted all one species, you lose 100% of the trees!
A good rule of thumb is that any given block should have trees from three different genus' and as many as 10 different species. This prevents catastrophic loss from the aforementioned causes.
4) Things are improving. The City now tries to require trenches during new large scale development projects. However, this isn't always possible, due to utilities and or constrained sidewalk width.
The question is then one of doing the best you can.
The species issue is one City Forestry is aware of, and trying to address. The problem occurs when BIAs or others have landscape architects who are in love with a landscape they've seen somewhere else
particularly an allee or the like, often done w/one-species, usually one not native to Toronto. They often place considerable pressure to deliver their 'vision' of the landscape, irrespective of whether it will actually work.
But maybe not everyone has a chance to read those posts, so I'll try to answer some of the questions/comments here.
1. The average life a of a Toronto street tree is around 7 years (that includes all types of plantings, though the stat was last established prior to higher quality
planting conditions becoming more common. (ie. during the square box planters everywhere era).
2. The City actually does invest in new trees, all plantings are watered for their first year, sometimes for their first two. After that, absent irrigation they are on their own (rainfall).
3. If trees are planted by a developer or by third-party contractor, they are typically under warranty for 2 years from the date of planting. So if the City discovered them dead, or close to same
the contractor must replace the tree.
4. The high failure rate is a function of several things:
1) Unfavourable planting conditions, this is particularly true with the old 'square box' planters, but event he typical old covered concrete pits aren't great. The former provides far
too little room for root growth; while the latter could be better for that, but its bigger sin is denying the tree enough water.
Tree trenches or large scale, multi-tree planters are by far the best growing conditions for street trees, to see the difference they make, go look at the planters outside Maple Leaf Square at 11 York street.
They're not that old, but coming in beautifully! (so much so, that they shaded out the understory plants, the thinning may be required in a few years)
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/11...1!3m1!1s0x882b34d4d83edf17:0x694505991c491b7a
Part of providing those enhanced condition is also designing planters, where possible to end up w/less salt in them. Note the York St. example which has planter elevated above the sidewalk level, reducing salt from the road somewhat (there will still be spray), but mostly eliminating it from the sidewalk side.
The success of the larger planters is also that the trees can share soil/nutrients and water across the larger space. Some species will be more 'competitive' for
resources, but often trees in the same species will network at the root level and 'share' resources from tree to tree.
Soil conditions are crucial and that was clearly an issue at Bloor St. where the it was suggested that the initial contractor put in substandard soils. (soils w/poor drainage and inadequate
nutrients).
An important point to consider about closed in trees is that there is little or no opportunity to re-charge the nutrients in the soil naturally (as happens from decaying leaves). That's an important
bonus from larger multi-tree (open) trench planters, where the fall leaves can be left to decay, at least for a little while.
2) Species choice is crucial. I have said here repeatedly that London Plane is a poor choice for typical Toronto street conditions. It can grow here, but requires better than average conditions (like a sizeable lawn, as well as extra TLC. They really don't care for road salt either. There are various other trees that also show iffy results, Sugar Maple, while it can be amazing your backyard, or local park is not keen on typical street tree conditions, Red Maple often fares poorly, and Birches hate it (not very pollution tolerant).
There are many better choices, notably Silver Maple, most Oaks, Honey Locust, the dutch-elm resistant version of American Elm, among others.
Ashes were, historically a very good choice, which is why they are so common, particularly in parts of Scarborough and North York. The Emerald Ash Borer has unfortunately changed that reality.
3) Related to the above, diversity of choices is important. Any and every tree species is vulnerable to one or more diseases or pests. If something goes wrong (ie. Dutch Elm Disease)
and you've planted all one species, you lose 100% of the trees!
A good rule of thumb is that any given block should have trees from three different genus' and as many as 10 different species. This prevents catastrophic loss from the aforementioned causes.
4) Things are improving. The City now tries to require trenches during new large scale development projects. However, this isn't always possible, due to utilities and or constrained sidewalk width.
The question is then one of doing the best you can.
The species issue is one City Forestry is aware of, and trying to address. The problem occurs when BIAs or others have landscape architects who are in love with a landscape they've seen somewhere else
particularly an allee or the like, often done w/one-species, usually one not native to Toronto. They often place considerable pressure to deliver their 'vision' of the landscape, irrespective of whether it will actually work.
Northern Light
Superstar
For those would want to make a difference, and see improved street tree health.
When you see a development of interest to you and attend a meeting, look at the streetscape plan!
If you see that the trees are NOT in large and/or trenched planters, then ask the planner and/or developer why?
If sidewalk width is raised as issue, discuss whether a widening could/should be done.
***
Show a keen interest in streetscape projects and/or road reconstructions and again, ask about the trees, what kind, in what kind of planters, and make sure they (planners, politicians) know
what you expect.
Forestry does not have the only say in these things. Streetscapes are often designed through the public realm section of Economic Development and Culture.
There are some wonderful people working to pretty up the City there, but they are not foresters and don't always have the requisite training or information to know the
best way to grow trees.
Consider pushing for more permeable road/sidewalk treatment on streets around the City. The more water that makes it into the ground, instead of the sewer, the better.
This also helps reduce basement flooding.
Finally, consider shadow impacts.
This is not to rail against tall or even ultra-tall buildings. But rather, consider massing, setbacks and the like, because most species need a fair bit of sun to thrive.
Trees on the south side of east-west roads often get the worst deal, because the buildings to the south block the southern sun, limiting you to east/west sun.
Which may be enough, but only if building heights/shapes etc. don't preclude too much of the latter.
Un-even sun conditions can also cause trees to curve/grow towards the light, which may imbalance their weight over time, reducing their lifespan substantially.
When you see a development of interest to you and attend a meeting, look at the streetscape plan!
If you see that the trees are NOT in large and/or trenched planters, then ask the planner and/or developer why?
If sidewalk width is raised as issue, discuss whether a widening could/should be done.
***
Show a keen interest in streetscape projects and/or road reconstructions and again, ask about the trees, what kind, in what kind of planters, and make sure they (planners, politicians) know
what you expect.
Forestry does not have the only say in these things. Streetscapes are often designed through the public realm section of Economic Development and Culture.
There are some wonderful people working to pretty up the City there, but they are not foresters and don't always have the requisite training or information to know the
best way to grow trees.
Consider pushing for more permeable road/sidewalk treatment on streets around the City. The more water that makes it into the ground, instead of the sewer, the better.
This also helps reduce basement flooding.
Finally, consider shadow impacts.
This is not to rail against tall or even ultra-tall buildings. But rather, consider massing, setbacks and the like, because most species need a fair bit of sun to thrive.
Trees on the south side of east-west roads often get the worst deal, because the buildings to the south block the southern sun, limiting you to east/west sun.
Which may be enough, but only if building heights/shapes etc. don't preclude too much of the latter.
Un-even sun conditions can also cause trees to curve/grow towards the light, which may imbalance their weight over time, reducing their lifespan substantially.
Northern Light
Superstar
There are many reasons for not using similar same species as other cities.
As noted, climate variation in temperature/humidity/or precipitation can play a role.
Salt-use in winter can play a role as well.
But there are other considerations.
For instance, Norway Maple is one of the most common street trees in Toronto.
Its not native, as its name might imply.
But it thrives in Toronto, it was brought here, because it doesn't mind our climate, but more importantly, its salt-tolerant.
Great, right?
Except, Norway Maples are highly Invasive.
Because of their adaptations, they are able to succeed and overtake native trees in our forests. They are not only salt tolerant, but they can grow in shade or sun, which relatively few trees do.
They also throw up very dense canopy, such that almost no sunlight gets under a Norway Maple when mature.
You often see evidence of this in grass boulevards and lawns, because the grass doesn't even grow under a mature Norway Maple.
That ability to out-compete native trees and create an environment hostile to native tree regeneration, means Norway Maple can take over whole forests here, wiping out
other species and native wild flowers etc. that might otherwise grow underneath.
They also provide substantially less habitat value (food/shelter) to local wildlife which doesn't understand this tree and therefore won't make use of it.
The experience w/Norway Maples has made government more leery of what it brings over, because you won't know for sure how invasive it is until you plant it.
We may get into that problem with Kentucky Coffee Tree, which I am starting to see reproduce aggressively in some ravines.