Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Another Vancouver tree war, this time residents versus park board

March 4th, 2011 · 40 Comments

Trees make city streets beautiful. They also make a mess. All over this city, they provoke annoyance (dripping sap, falling chestnuts that dent cars, branches that come loose in high winds, leaves, leaves, leaves) and heartfelt love.

The question for park staff, who manage the city’s 137,000 trees and growing (3,300 new ones planted every year; 1,100 removed), is when the former outweighs the latter. An intense scuffle has broken out in a Commercial Drive neighbourhood over their assessment that seven blocks worth of elm trees are problematic.

Park staff are proposing to remove 30 out of the 135 trees, which has prompted basically a neighbourhood uprising.

It should cause all of us to pause and think about the trees on our own streets. I know that in my neighbourhood, one tree came down in the big windstorm of 2006. Last year, a large branch fell off the tree in front of my house and crushed the car in front of my van. (I was wishing it had actually hit my van, so I could just get the insurance money and move on to another vehicle that has working locks, rear window-wiper, fan, etc., but that’s another story.)

Does that mean all of those chestnut trees should perhaps be removed? Or do we value them so much that we’re willing to pay a little more to have the park arborists monitor them carefully and prune them more often than elsewhere? Different people will add up the pluses and minuses differently.

But for sure, the people on East Sixth have made it clear that their math shows the existing trees come out solidly in the plus column.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Max

    I am curious, what type of qualification do city or park arborists have?

    Is there some sort of certificate they hold, or is it just the job they are assigned to.

    It makes a huge diffence when the people making these decisions have knowledge over those that are just doing the job they are paid to do.

  • Dave

    http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.aspx

    The International Society of Arborists governs the Arborist designation. It’s not mandatory, but I would hope/assume that a large organization like the CoV would require the relevant designation to call themselves “arborists”.

  • Sheila

    I am an East 6th resident. Three days before we received this notice, we spoke to a Hydro employee inspecting wires on the street. He assured us there were no Hydro issues with the trees.

    Any idea where the meetings are being held, as the City staff are so far unable to help me with times and locations? Not that they didn’t try!

  • boohoo

    Cities have professional arborists, no doubt about it.

    When I requested new street trees along my boulevard they were in the ground within a week. I was surprised at the speed. I also just bought a cherry tree as part of the 125 year anniversary event here:

    http://www.vcbf.ca/birthdayblossom/birthday-blossoms

  • Sheila

    Never mind about the meeting place question. It appears to be in front of my house based on Open File Vancouver.

  • Morven

    Something unusual.

    It is usually Hydro (or so I thought) and/or Hydro arborists that make the decisions on risks to the lines on public space not the Parks Board.

    Has there been some outsourcing by Hydro to the Parks Board – a sort of branch plant economy.
    -30-

  • spartikus

    Dear Max,

    Let me introduce you to Google. Using this remarkable invention I was able to find out the answer. Elapsed time: 15 seconds.

    But then, why do a smidgen of work when it would ruin a good backhanded inquiry.

  • Joe Just Joe

    What I’d like to know is why we continue making the same mistakes we used to. When the city plants trees under power lines why do they still plant trees that they know will grow tall enough to inter with them. Surely there are trees that could be planted that won’t cause those problems. Leave the larger trees for less problematic locations.
    Same can be said for sidewalks, perhaps plant trees that aren’t expected to lift the sidewalks with their roots.

  • anything but crabapples

    @boohoo – what was your strategy for getting new street trees?

    i’ve asked if the sad, pathetic, stunted crab apples on my street (which only look good one week of the year) could be replaced, but was told they wouldn’t replace them b/c nothing was wrong with them…

  • boohoo

    My strategy? I phoned and said I want street trees. A week later they were in the ground.

    There was nothing there, so there was nothing to replace–how big are your trees?

    I can’t remember his name but we talked on the phone and he drove by and looked at my street, and we decided together what type of tree to plant. The whole thing was very professional and engaging. Kudos to the park board.

  • rf

    Funny how we never heard another word about Gregor’s Renewal Partners chums (Renata and Aran Stephens, Green food darlings) and their little clearcutting project……

    I guess Gregor just told them to take the heat for a while and the media would forget about it?……

  • ThinkOutsideABox

    Sparticus,

    There’s actually another invention that gives a backhanded offer of assistance to a backhanded inquiry.

    Here, let me google that for you: http://tinyurl.com/65aolc6

  • Max

    @ boohoo and Dave, thank you for your answers.

    @ Spartikus, my question was legit and was neither mean spirited or backhanded unlike your response. But, I would expect nothing less.

  • Chris Keam

    It’s a fair criticism IMO when the question being asked can be answered with a simple Google search. Do your own homework.

    As an experiment I typed in Max’s question (adding ‘Vancouver’ to eliminate other cities) and got the exact answer she was seeking. If it’s knowledge one is seeking, then why not actually make some small attempt to find the answer instead of expecting someone else to do the legwork for you?

  • Bill Lee

    In that link “intense scuffle” above it was mentioned that the protest included a couple of journalists for the East 6th Avenue elms. Hmm.

    I’ve had my dealings with the city arborists.
    They mean well, try to educate the public on why a tree won’t survive on the tiny meridian strip and so on.
    But their crews strip far too many branches off. Is ths part of the City of Ballem trying to reduce lawsuit payouts for falling branches on the precious sedans parked underneath?

    They’ve destroyed the appearance of an old set of oaks over the years. 3 years ago, they sent out a notice and put up signs on pruning. Knowing how chop-heavy-handed they can be, I called and asked that the ‘water-shoots’ be kept. And I wrapped ‘my tree’ with signs to remind them.
    All well and good but the other week while I was away, they came and did the block with 30 year old branches cut and the ‘water-shoots’ cut.
    Instead of looking out at a leafy tree of the ‘water-shoots’ from the second floor, we now see a telephone pole like object.

    They have never seen real oaks with their widely spreading branches seen in Old World parks and palaces, we get a 6 metre telephone pole and a bundle of high branches.

    Not that they haven’t cut the trees down at their convenience over the 90 year life of the oak trees. Planted on opposite sides of the street about 10 metres apart, there are gaps in the pairing where the city put up onwanted mid-block light fixtures, and where BC Telephone put up a pole to transport wires (not to connect to the houses) to a a junction box two blocks away. The squirrels run along the wire bundle because of course they had to “open” the tree by bruning for the trunk wire over the years.

    Not to mention another set of small leaf maple trees without right arms, cut off so that set of tall Hydro power poles next to them don’t get leaves-on-the-tracks.

    Sigh.

  • Bill Lee

    Flikr stream of the elms and notices
    http://preview.tinyurl.com/6fm6mtg

    and of course their own web page
    http://saveourelms.wordpress.com/

  • spartikus

    Spartikus, my question was legit and was neither mean spirited or backhanded unlike your response. But, I would expect nothing less.

    You seem quite comfortable impugning the integrity of other CoV staff. Why would I think the Parks Board arborists were any exception?

    Has everyone forgotten the great wind storm of 2006? Do you think one of the lessons the Parks Board might have learned from that was to be more proactive?

  • T Ian McLeod

    Maybe if it’s a liability issue, the City could ask the East 6th residents to take complete responsibility for any damage caused by the trees. That’s how it would be handled in Utopia (I just got back: it was great!).

  • Morry

    I drove by the street this morning. it was closed with city crews that seemed to be cutting? yes no?

  • Max

    @ Bill Lee #16

    The same scenario has taken place at my boyfriend’s place in Surrey.

    They were chopping at the branches that faced the roadway and he confronted them. He lives on a side street and there aren’t alot of wires and no streetlamps.

    They stopped and came back a few weeks later.

    There is nothing left to trim. I will snap some pics this weekend an post them….

  • Deacon Blue

    “Trees make city streets beautiful. They also make a mess. All over this city, they provoke annoyance…”

    Frances Bula

    Now, I think that people and cars are far more likely to make a “mess” on our streets than trees.

    For years I’ve been trying to find the answer to a simple question: how much pollution does an urban street tree suck up? And, how much particulate matter sticks to the leaves of an urban tree, then fall to the ground in the fall when city crews sweep it up (and all the rubber tire muck that stuck to it during the season) and recycle it in a compost heap?

    No one can answer it. No one has bothered to measure that, as far as I know.

    Here is the invisible part you are not taking into account, Frances. Trees suck up carbon oxides and breathe out oxygen (at least in daylight hours). They take the carbon oxides and make leave and bark and wood out of them. That’s reprocessing pollution right on the site where it happens—the urban street.

    Hug an urban tree. There is not a more faithful servant out there.

  • Michael Geller

    I love trees…but sometimes they do get too big, especially in urban areas, when the wrong trees have been planted. Sadly, many important public and private viewscapes are also being threatened by trees that are growing too large.

    Frances and I recently discussed the issue of urban tree management on the CKNW Civic Affairs Panel with Bill Good. I mentioned that I had met with Cornelia Oberlander and a concerned Point Grey property owner to discuss how best to create a new urban tree management strategy for Vancouver.

    This incident seems to reinforce the need for a thoughtful discussion on the matter.

    Cornelia has subsequently discussed tree management with the head of Forestry at UBC who apparently has a particular interest in urban tree management too.

    I’m hoping for a forum later this year to discuss, in a balanced way, how best to manage trees that are getting too large…stay tuned.

    Ps..when I managed the development of Deering Island, we wanted to plant substantial flowering cherry trees. We even went out and purchased them in advance. However, the Park Board wouldn’t let us plant them. They said there were already too many flowering cherry trees in the city, and if a disease would strike, too much of the city would be affected.

    Since we already had the trees, we decided to plant them anyway….but not, of course on the city boulevard. No, we planted them at the intersection of the front and side property lines…

    Today the trees are well maintained by the Homeowners’ Associationand are growing nicely. But it is so sad that they couldn’t have been planted closer to the road to create a dense canopy over the street.

    Having read the above postings, maybe we should now ask the Park Board to come along and plant a new row of trees on the boulevard….since we don’t have any!

    While they are down here, it would be nice if they also changed the name of the Deering Island Park to the Art Cowie Park, in memory of a man who did much to further the planting of trees around the city.

  • Stuart Mackinnon

    Michael re: park renaming–get your Homeowners Association to ask the PB to re-name the park. There is protocol for this. It is not arduous. Just takes a request and a little time.

  • Creek’er

    If the residents want to save the trees so badly, they should be willing to accept the costs associated with maintaining them; including the liability associated with any damage to property that results.

    I’m going to go out on a ‘limb’ and assume they want the benefits without any responsibilities.

    And don’t park your car in the West End if you don’t want chestnuts denting it up (shakes fist!).

  • Bill McCreery

    Michael and Stuart.

    This is something you proposed at Art’s funeral in 2009 Michael. It’s a wonderful idea, and I’m sure the Park Board with Stuart’s encouragement can make it happen.

  • Tessa

    @Michael
    raser is
    I don’t understand what viewscapes are harmed by large trees, nor what exactly you mean by “too large.” Rather, I find the larger trees especially create the best viewscapes. East sixth is one of my favourite streets in the city; 10th Avenue near Fraser not far behind. And this is specifically because of those street trees, and especially because they reach so high and provide a nave-like effect that you don’t get with those puny little ones. It makes Vancouver special.

    In this case, especially since Hydro doesn’t feel the trees are a problem at all (as said in the story), then I think we can keep them. They don’t just benefit the people living there, either.

    And frankly, I would like to see more of those types of trees planted around the city where they won’t conflict with hydro wires. So yes, a discussion on street trees would be a wonderful idea, so long as it’s not framed in a way that is entirely about minimizing any “impact”, both positive and negative.

  • ThinkOutsideABox

    I agree with Tessa. Give me a neighbourhood with old growth over new concrete any day.

  • Everyman

    Perhaps Vancouver should join the 21st century and actually bury power lines (what a concept). Instead they force trees into unnatural pruned contortions as they seek to keep the power lines clear.

  • Max

    @ Everyman:

    Amen to that.

  • Max

    Reading from the Van. Sun:

    ….’
    Although an outcry from area residents has temporarily saved 30 giant elm trees on East Sixth Avenue, at least until the Vancouver park board gets a second opinion, such trees would not be saved by a strengthened bylaw because they are on a city street right-of-way and are under the park board’s jurisdiction.

    The 70-year-old trees were slated to be cut down mid-March because the park board said pruning had made them unbalanced…”

    ****

    Which beggs the question, who ‘pruned’ the trees to begin with. Was it the city/park board’s arboritsts????

    Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Vancouver+mayor+considers+toughening+city+tree+bylaw/4392744/story.html#ixzz1FtAPViRw

  • Matthew

    Shame about these trees, but we have to remind ourselves that trees are not permanent fixtures. They are ephemeral, living things which eventually die (though many native species in coastal BC can live for over a thousand years). The trees in question are over 70 years old and will probably need to be cut down in the near future due to the contorted and uneven shape they have been carved into. That said, my ideal city is one where all the hydro lines are underground and the trees wouldn’t need to be pruned to maintain clearance.

    As well, unlike some armchair observers on this thread, I have full faith in the professional capacity of Parks Board (and municipal) staff to make knowledgeable and correct decisions in their areas of expertise.

  • Michael Geller

    Tessa, yes, trees are wonderful to look at, and so are nicely designed buildings. But just as some people don’t like a building blocking their view of the mountains, the water, the city skyline, or a distant forest, many people don’t like trees blocking the same views.

    That’s right…some people prefer to look at a distant view of the mountains, water, or cityscape, rather than at large trees. This was particularly evident during the discussion re: the desire to protect distant views from Queen Elizabeth Park.

    It was evident at the SFU Diamond Club on Burnaby Mountain when trees started to block all the magnificent views of Burrard Inlet, and it is evident all over the city when trees on private properties start to block cherished views.

    Most of us are very disgusted when we learn of people deliberately killing or illegally cutting trees to restore or protect their views. That being said, I think we need to develop a policy to allow pruning, the cutting of trees, and other tree management measures to maintain public and private views.

    We also need to manage trees to allow the sun to penetrate into otherwise shady areas. Indeed, I’m aware of a situation where people are now concerned that a solar power installation will not work because the trees around it are growing so large they’re blocking the sun…and this will become an increasingly common problem in years to come!

    So whether it’s public views, private views, or solar penetration, we need to be realistic and put the appropriate measures in place. While we do allow the removal of ‘hazzardous’ trees, it is difficult to remove trees at the moment on other grounds. This needs to be reviewed.

  • MB

    I live on a street with huge maple trees. They were planted 70+ years ago, back when there were few if any arborists working for the city. They are the female form and drop tonnes of whirlygig seed pods along with their leaves … in the gutters, on cars, in gardens where they germinate, and even in the front foyer on a windy day.

    The reason I suspect they had no professional arborists back then was the obvious mistake in the species selection. Amongst the maples came the occasional London plane tree, a species with similar leaves, but with a much larger habit.

    There they are, towering over the canopy of maples that dominate the neighbourhood, spiking up like tall guys in a crowd of average people.

    There is one right in front of my house. It’s trunk is five feet thick and the canopy towers 70 feet over the street. Its roots got into the ancient city sewer several times over the decades and blocked it. I caught the last backup just before it would’ve flooded my basement (it took an $850 bill from Mr Rooter to find out the blockage was under the street, not in my line — the sewers dept. unblocked it at 11:00 p.m. on a Friday).

    But do I want the tree(s) removed? Absolutely not! Their character, summer shade and view of of Grouse Mountain they frame at the end of our N-S street make them an exceptionally valuable component of our neighbourhood.

    That is not to say they could have been planted and managed with more intelligence. Dangerous and hazard trees (resulting from interior rot, or wind and snow damage, etc.) and large branches should, and clearly must, be removed as a public safety precaution.

    Small and medium-sized trees would be more appropriate for dense urban streets, especially where hydro lines exist. Large growing species should be confined to streets with generous medians and boulevards without major overhead hydro lines, and, of course, our parks.

    On E 6th, what came first, the trees or the hydro lines? If it was the hydro lines, then someone made a terrible mistake to plant a tree species that would grow to towering heights there. If it was the trees, then someone made a terrible mistake in their hydro transmission infrastructure planning.

    This is to me a sign that we are paying for the lack of foresight and planning of a half-century ago.

  • ThinkOutsideABox

    When I lived in downtown Toronto at Dundas and McCaul, I was always struck by the difference in view from downtown city street level, to looking down at the city from the 9th floor, which in spring through fall looking north gave the appearance that the city was blanketed in a green canopy.

    Even the downtown core from high above looks very lush compared to Vancouver’s – Stanley Park notwithstanding, although Toronto downtown has its big parks too.

    This is how it appears in the opposing view south towards downtown: http://www.thekingshighway.ca/PHOTOS/hwy401-95_lg.jpg

    I would be confident no one is complaining that the trees are blocking their view of the dome, CN tower or skyline.

  • John Coupar

    Good point Michael re need for pruning to maintain view coridors QE Park is an example of doing it right,after much resistance PB staff foumd a balance.Vancouverites are very fortunate that the historic vision to plant trees and create our unique green urban legacy has been a long time policy of Vancouver Park Board.I for one am very concerned that budget cuts to PB for tree planting and park maintainence are the new trend,

  • Ron

    The City cut down all of the trees on Granville Street south of Robson to “reviatlize” the street. It planted saplings instead (a number of which have died).

  • Everyman

    @ Michael Geller #32
    I recall an article in the Tyee saying it would take 250 years to pay off solar panel installation in a Vancouver home. IMHO, its not worth sacrificing a tree with proven benefit to the environment and wildlife, for that kind of negligible return.

  • juddc

    I’m just a few blocks away – and some of these trees are a real hazard. Not just on 6th, but all over Grandview. The city doesn’t top the trees…which I think might help in not having trees that grow to 4 stories tall, and hang over people’s roofs. There are quite a few big branches breaking off each year – these old trees get pithy in parts – and falling on cars, homes etc , so I think it might be time for a cull.

    The sad part is that they are beautiful so its a bit of a drag to see them go.

  • Rick Peterson

    Hi Frances,
    I live on the 2200 block of East 6th, so a number of the targeted trees are just outside my front porch. I’m a little late on this issue, having been away for most of the last week, but with the advantage of having seen many of the comments and emails flying around the neighborhood, I have to think that the City has overall done a good job on this, with signs and letters and communication that I think was pretty good. Could it be better? Maybe. Could and should there be more consultation? Sure, but the bottom line is that some of these trees clearl are a danger, and only 30 of the 135 trees in the blocks affected will be taken down. This is far from an urban clear-cut.

    We have a very active and articulate group of people in our neighborhood, which is great to see – and I’m sure their actions on the weekend will inevitably result in more work done on this. Again, however, it’s pretty clear – some of these trees have to go. I’m copying here some observations of one of our neighbours that was circulated over the weekend, and I think it offers a clear-eyed view of the status of these trees:

    “I did a mini-tour of a few of the trees on my block and a couple of others with an independent arborist yesterday, to try to understand the technical issues better. I learned a few things:
    * The Hydro lines are a real problem for these trees. The original lines were probably single lines on the poles, or three lines in a vertical alignment up the pole. V-crotch pruning works better in that situation.
    The tree can fill back in above the lines and maintain some kind of overall balance. When the lines were changed (don’t know when – decades ago
    probably) to a horizontal arrangement of three lines on a 6-foot cross member at the top of the pole, the pruning strategy became much more difficult. Essentially, the V separation has to be continued right up to the level of the cross member. That prevents the new leaders from growing vertically and leads to severe loads at the end of long semi-horizontal limbs. This foreshortens the life of the tree, they simply will not live to be 200 as they otherwise might.
    * These trees don’t withstand hard pruning well. Rot can set in. A number of trees (including some not actually marked for removal) have splits and pockets of rot that I didn’t notice until the arborist pointed them out to me.
    * Hard pruning leads to formation of a lot of water shoots. They can grow several feet in a year, necessitating maintenance under the hydro lines much more frequently than the once every 7 or 8 years which is the City of Vancouver standard. This may be a budget issue for the City, though my arborist says it takes only 15 minutes with a cherry-picker to trim the water shoots on a tree and anyway Hydro pays.

    “When we get the City’s tree-by-tree assessment, I think we will need to identify which trees are targeted because of: (a) rot or splits combined with severe loads; (b) safety considerations but not necessarily imminent failure; (c) budgetary concerns connected with more frequent pruning than the City would like; (d) esthetic assessment, i.e. City’s feeling that the pruning necessary to save the tree will render it not worth saving. We may be able to save (b), (c) and (d) trees.”

    We’ll see where this plays out – thanks for highlighting this story.
    Rick

  • Dale Nixon

    Which beggs the question, who ‘pruned’ the trees to begin with. Was it the city/park board’s arboritsts????

    Max. Bc Hydro contracts tree companys to cut their own line right of ways. All city trees that have hydro lines near them are cut by Hydro not the city. This is the case on East 6. Your continued attack on city arborists has fallen short again. From what i have heard the second opinon as come back with the same results as the city with a few exceptions. The second opion cost the tax payers five thousand dollars.