Where did you see that they were cut? There has been no cutting of the bridges, they are still planned. Just waiting on the next wave of funding.I think eventually yes they will. Unless it gets cut from their budget. They have already cut out the bridges from the new QQ design as there was no budget set aside for them.
This may or may not have been a joke, but I honestly don't see why we shouldn't replicate the WT formula across the whole city, or at least for certain strategic loci of development. Perhaps we should create various "zones" governed by the entity, which would oversee redevelopment. The current approach isn't working aesthetically, and we are gobbling up development lands that could have become much more without necessarily spending a huge amount more.Can we remove the "Waterfront" from Waterfront Toronto and just have them redo the whole city please?
Yes, the Sugar Beach trees have done VERY VERY well but I would not be boasting too much about those on Sherbourne Common and we had best not talk about the Queens Quay trees (many of which were, finally, replaced this year and MAY now do better.)The trees of sugar beach continue their impressive growth (via https://waterfrontoronto.ca/nbe/wcm...Bayfront+Display+Boards_FINAL.pdf?MOD=AJPERES):
View attachment 190654
Deep Root (maker of the Silva Cell) wrote a blog post a few years back with some info about the ones at Sherbourne Common: https://www.deeproot.com/blog/blog-entries/lessons-from-three-adjacent-silva-cell-projectsYes, the Sugar Beach trees have done VERY VERY well but I would not be boasting too much about those on Sherbourne Common and we had best not talk about the Queens Quay trees (many of which were, finally, replaced this year and MAY now do better.)
I see no reason why the SC ones are still so small (and some are dead) as they are, or ought to be, planted in silva cells with with lots of root space. Those on QQ have to contend with salt, traffic and a more restricted (though still with silva cells) environment so it is more understandable why they have not thrived.
It seems that even six years later, these trees haven't fully recovered.These trees all arrived from the same nursery in poor condition, many with co-dominant stems and other undesirable physical characteristics. Poor quality nursery trees are less tolerant of transplant shock and establishment stress, further predisposing them to other complications like pests and windthrow.
Ormston-Holloway’s report explained that the dieback could be explained by several factors, among them: transplant shock, depth of planting, tree care prior to installation, and nursery conditions. In addition to these factors, a pest – Cottony Maple Scale (Pulvinaria innumerabilis) – is also now present. All of these factors combined caused a “serious decline in vigour.”