I don’t normally get too excited about trees. They’re nice and all, but my love of trees generally falls into the category of “is it pretty?” If the answer is yes, then I’m all over it. Nevertheless, I really enjoyed the article in the Alameda Sun about the tree surveyor hired by the City of Alameda to take inventory of our exisiting stock of streets trees. According to the article this is one of the first steps toward a Citywide Master Tree Plan. But of course when you live in a City whose name means “tree-lined avenue” a master tree plan is a definite must.
Personally the thing I really enjoyed about the article was the “best of/worst of” from Alamedans at the end of the article. I liked Barbara Brown’s dislike of Acacias and wanting to do a little “creative” removal of them for the good of asthma stufferers everywhere.
For my good and bad trees, I like Maples as well, but the Japanese variety. They’ll probably never get planted as street trees, but they sure are pretty. For the street tree variety I like the ginkos because they have a wonderful leaf shape and they turn that beautiful yellow in the autumn. Although they are a little messy when all the leaves fall, it’s worth it. Honorable mention are cherry blossom trees which always remind me of Anne of Green Gables.
The only trees I don’t really like are huge massive pine-like trees. There is a notably ugly one on Grand Street at Santa Clara I think that I dislike greatly. No offense if that is someone’s tree. But at least I know that the City probably isn’t going to go around planting those ugly monsters as a street tree.
But if you had a tall pine tree, you might be fortunate enough to have a Townsends Warbler overwinter in your garden.
http://www.birdguide.com/brdpgs/668.htm
Comment by Susan — March 20, 2008 @ 7:49 am
I don’t like magnolia trees and guess what we have on my street as street trees. The cherry trees in the city look nice right now.
Comment by Joel — March 20, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
The funniest part of the Journal’s tree coverage was the sidebar where people named their most and least favorite trees. One person chose jacarandas as a favorite, and another as a least favorite. That just shows how subjective this tree thing is.
I love trees in general, but there are some that are just not suitable as street trees, particularly in areas with narrow parking strips (most of Alameda). The people who live on Gibbons love their liquidambars, but liquidambars’ roots are incredibly destructive. I can’t even take elderly visitors for a walk down Gibbons because the sidewalks are so messed up from the roots. Sooner or later someone is going to get seriously hurt, and the city will be slapped with a big fat lawsuit. We cannot afford the risk (not to mention the street repairs), and I am astounded that the city even considers planting new liquidambars.
Comment by Jill — March 23, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
Thanks for the kudos — but it was in the Alameda Sun, not the Journal. But thanks for reading!
I love the ornamental pear trees blossoming just now — and the look of the tulip trees, but I wouldn’t want to clean up after them. Worst tree has to be the olive trees — little horrid leaves and nasty black splats everywhere.
Comment by Julia T — March 23, 2008 @ 7:49 pm
“Master Tree Plan?” or Massive waste of dough?
Clearly city staff need to know about our trees, which to plant, how to prune… but there is very little “new” about trees. We should already know which varieties are problematic as far as ‘droppings’ and invasive roots. Which species fall more frequently (like the eucalyptus.) We should know relative growth rates, which trees provide shade for which parts of the year and what their expected canopy size is for 5 year increments or until the tree is an adult, and what the life expectancies are for the different varieties. This info is vital for tree replacement.
There are books that provide this info already. There are computer disks available where you can enter a range of parameters such as “non-invasive roots”, “15 - 20 ft canopy”, non-flowering, slow growing… etc, then you hit enter and magically the trees that meet those conditions that will grow in your climate are listed. That is useful, and books with these disks cost less than $100. The idea that we need to inventory or tag all our trees with a number I believe is ludicrous. Less crazy is the idea that an out-doorsy entrepreneur would want to make a cottage industry as a ‘tree consultant’ and try to get suckers to fund unneeded projects.
Comment by David Kirwin — March 24, 2008 @ 4:40 pm