Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Vision/COPE councillors vote against uncertain tree-preservation plan

June 10th, 2010 · 24 Comments

In spite of a valiant effort by a whole group of people hoping to save the 120-foot tulip tree in the West End, it was a no. Architects Bing Thom and Michael Heeney, the former head of real-estate services for the city, Bruce Maitland, an arborist and a landscape architect were not enough to convince councillors to bend the rule — or create a new one.

Councillors, with the exception of the NPA’s Suzanne Anton, said that it wouldn’t approve a policy that would allow planners to give a developer bonus density in exchange for preserving a tree if the owner of adjacent land, where part of the tree’s roots live, wouldn’t agree to a similar deal.

Arborist Norman Hall made a passionate case for the tree, saying it had managed to survive Hurricane Frieda in 1962, the winter storms of 2006/2007 and could easily live another 100 years. “We think this tree could outlive the structure that’s going to be built beside it. It’s still going strong. It’s got a long life ahead of it.”

Apparently not. Heeney said after the meeting that the landowner will likely take it down to build the mere 12-storey condo that he’s now permitted. (City planners had been proposing to give an extra six storeys in order to compensate the developer for the difficulties of building, especially building parking, around it. Yardley McNeill said that had been calculated in 2007 as worth $4 million to the landowner, just enough to cover the costs. The neighbour had been offered a similar deal but, as planners noted, was someone not familiar with the city system, just a regular person, and intimidated by the idea of a legal encumbrance on the land.)

Councillor Geoff Meggs said that while council wants to protect heritage, it has to be able to actually protect it. If there isn’t agreement from all landowners, there is no protection. Councillor Andrea Reimer said that the city should look at strengthening the tree bylaw to protect trees. “It’s very difficult to take a policy meant for bricks and mortar and apply it to living things.”

Anton had argued that voting to allow staff to explore the idea would not have held council to anything. They could decide at a later date if they weren’t in favour of the building’s height, the deal, the fit with the neighbourhood. Her dire warning: “If this tree comes down, that will be an extremely unfortunate consequence.”

The end.

But

Categories: Uncategorized

  • gmgw

    I lived in the west end for seven years and could weep at the thought of that magnificent tree, which I’ve admired in passing many times, coming down like so much garbage. This is just one more reason why, come the next election (can’t wait!), I will be voting for the Insane Clown Party, should they field candidates, or damn near *anyone* else, rather than the Terminal-Lack-of-Vision gang of morons. “Green City”, my ass.

    Here’s a little unfunny joke, for those with sufficient cynicism in their makeup:
    Q: What’s the difference between Vision and the NPA?
    A: Not a damn thing.
    gmgw

  • Bill Smolick

    Kill the trees! Save the whale!

    gmgw: why don’t you just vote for yourself? It’s not hard to get your name on the ballot, Mr. Smarty Pants. You might even get more votes than you imagine…

    In 2002 Ndyabagyera Anatoli was probably the most intelligent, coherent candidate and yet we got that clown Larry Campbell.

  • Phil

    Why is parking still considered necessary in the West End?

  • grumbelschmoll

    Kill the tree and a twelve storey building, or let the tree live and an eighteen storey building, those are ghastly choices.

    How about let the tree live, restore the old mansion, do sensible low-rise infill development, be friends with the neighbourhoood?

    We’d have better choices if our planning laws and regulations recognised the social responsibility of landownership. And treeownership.

  • Bill Smolick

    There are laws that recognize the social responsibility of treeownership. That’s why you need a permit to cut one down often.

    The real question is where are the off-lease tree parks? Sometimes I want to take my tree for a walk, and I need to unleash it to let it run free.

    Parks Board needs to get on that.

  • Urbanismo

    @ grumbelschmoll “Kill the tree and a twelve storey building, or let the tree live and an eighteen storey building, those are ghastly choices.”

    ghastly choices! Indeed and those are clearly not the only ones.

    For all the pomposity, arrogance, over-planned planning, pious greening/sustainability and paid for flak this is a FAILED TOWN and if that sounds over the top so be it!

  • kermit

    If only they spent this much time and effort on most other planning issues.

  • Urbanismo

    . . . when it cannot even save a tree . . . when it plans and prices its own out of their homes that’s a . . . FAILED TOWN

  • Bill Smolick

    A little early to hit the lithium isn’t it, Ubanismo?

  • Barb Saylor

    Any city tree is ultimately doomed. Sooner or later the tree will interfere with something, whether it be water and sewer lines, pavement, house foundations, or the needs of a changing household/neighbourhood. And then there are pests and disease, to which the urban forest is perhaps more susceptible because of the stresses of the urban setting, and because of the penchant for tree monoculture. While it’s sad that such a landmark tree has been slated for removal, it’s a wonder that it survived as long as it did.

  • David

    Greenest City – Joke right?!

  • david m

    wow, 3/4 of the comments on here are insane.

    what is council supposed to do, slap a restrictive convenant on the adjacent property for the sake of protecting the big tree? as rezoning the site (and hood) as low rise, that’s crazy too – the city needs more density, not less.

    losing this tree sucks, and one hopes that this doesn’t mark the end of efforts to save it but, jesus christ, do some of you nutters ever lack perspective.

  • jesse

    A symptom at how addicted the City has become to revenues from construction permits. Right or wrong, the concept of low density is not even on the table.

    Perhaps nailing a heritage plaque to the tree would make council feel better but there is significant money at stake for the landowners. Fund raising for the next election starts soon, apparently.

  • David

    Ya some comments are insane – but did you notice we kinda lost the frogs, then the bees, soon the salmon and the trees

  • Bill Smolick

    > Right or wrong, the concept of low density is not even on the table.

    Nor should it be. CERTAINLY not in the downtown core.

    I do think too much high density isn’t what people want to live in though.

    I had a great first date a few years ago with a fascinating, intelligent, thoughtful woman who–when the conversation came around to environmentalism, a shared passion–told me she loved what they were doing downtown with high density.

    I told her I didn’t think most people really liked living on the 17th floor of a tall tower, and that medium density was probably preferable with buildings of a few stories…ones where you could still feel the ground–emotionally, at least.

    She reiterated her love of high density until she realized that the building she had just bought an apartment in was….you guess it..a four story building with 12 units in it.

    It was a good source of laughs for both of us.

  • Bill Smolick

    David:

    Yes we need to keep the trees. Thing is, there’s a natural cycle here too. Circle of life, Timon & Pumba etc. etc. Watch the Lion King (or Ferngully, if you prefer.)

    Trees die.

    I have this persistent, recurring fear that our future means we’re going to wind up living in a perfectly preserved version of the late 20th century. We spend so much time fighting the natural cycle that nothing will ever be allowed to decay or change.

    A world without its natural patina hardly seems interesting, does it?

  • G. deAuxerre

    We have a critical and chronic housing crisis.

    We do not have a tree crisis. I can’t recall the number of trees once estimated in the built parts of the Metro area – private lands, parks schools roads, etc., but it was in the millions.

    CMHC recently reported that the development industry in Metro needs to produce housing for 68 new households EACH BUSINESS DAY of the year. Although sadly, single-occupant households are growing rapidly.

    The old tulip tree will be retired, replaced with smaller species, a couple dozen new housing units will be built and added to the housing stock, and these units will be occupied and freeing up a series of less expensive ‘used’ units for others.

    End of story. Next.

    68/bus day. Let’s get back to work. We also have a chronic productivity problem in Canada.

  • David

    GdA, The price of these units and the fact that one of the buildings is owned by off-shore interests kinda leads me to think that this has nothing to do with the housing crisis. Only about the bottom line. BTW, did you happen to hear about something called the pine beetle?

  • jesse

    “We have a critical and chronic housing crisis”

    Really? If we truly had a housing crisis rents would be increasing more than they are. The cynical side of me says any time the words “housing shortage” get used in a City dossier or press release, it has more to do with balancing the budget than it does with what the data show.

    If the City solely relied on single family dwelling permits and subdividing lots for solving its quiescent housing supply woes, one wonders if the “housing shortage” would be any worse.

  • Urbanismo

    @ jesse are you talking city revenues or housing? I don’t know about revenues, I don’t know about housing either!

    But I do know we are stuck with a mono-culture urban environment where security of tenure is an issue, condos are squeezing out the family home, where affordability is an issue.

    As for ambient living, yunno all that stuff we spend millions on to visit Europe to see, well . . . just isn’t part of the conversation!

    Unless, of course, you bought-in in Kerrisdale in the 1960’s then you’re sitting pretty.

    IMO we are saddled with housing as our only family source wealth and when real estate values track up we are happy but when real estate tracks down we are very, very unhappy campers . . . surely there is more to life than that?

  • Urbanismo

    PS . . . an anxiety metre would be a more truthful gauge of the health of the city than real estate prices . . .

  • jesse

    @Urbanismo, any look at how density is performed in European cities of similar size shows how significant a paradigm shift is required for the City, should they want to follow a Europe-inspired urban planning model that is.

    Again, the cynic in me thinks larger projects are more closely tied to the re-election campaigns of councilors than are the piecemeal smaller subdivisions and rebuilds. But I’ll assume the best: maybe the margins are better on condo permits!

  • Jonathan Baker

    In the early seventies Kerrisdale faced the identical problem There was a magnificent redwood tree on 41st about two blocks West of Arbutus on the North Side of the street. A developer wanted to develop the site. TEAM was in control of Council at the time. Ray Spaxman was the Planner and I was a social planner. We all agreed that the tree could not be destroyed. The Developer agreed to modify his building design to include the tree. The building and the iconic tree are there today – both in great shape.

    Those were the days when they had a Council that was not just lint in the developers pockets.

  • scm

    Thanks JB – got to agree – why would council not simply say the tree stays end of story.

    I also like Phil’s comment:

    Why is parking still considered necessary in the West End?

    no one replied.

    a $4 million dollar bonus would have been ludicrous.