Grrrrrrr.
As I sit here in the coffee shop within the City Hall of Austin, Texas, I have a bone to pick with the rich and powerful. I am looking out at one of the more vibrant downtown areas in the state of Texas, and possibly the country, and I should be awed and excited just to be here. However, my "Hort Vision" picks out the irresponsible way in which trees and plants are placed next to these multi-million dollar structures. What. The. Hell.
What a terrible fate to consider yourself a professional in an unregulated (yes, there are some regulations out there, but c'mon) industry. There is no way to measure the effectiveness or skill of your work when you must compare yourself to folks like the riff-raff who are in charge of putting what will some day be HUGE shade trees mere yards from these grand buildings.
What do these folks think is going to happen in 5-10 years when these trees start to outgrow the 10 square feet alloted to them in the first place? Well, dear readers, I will tell you what will happen. They will either be butchered in order to relieve pressure on the building, or taken out altogether. It would have saved time and money to not install them in the first place, eh?
A good Horticulture friend of mine, Pat McNeal, holds a dim view of the state of landscaping in this day and age in central Texas. His opinions go beyond simple discussions of which plants would look good together. He implicates our whole industry in a failure to grasp the real needs of plants and the soil. The longer I am in this business here in Austin, the more I jump on Pat's bandwagon that says "change is needed". Who is responsible for this change? Private industry? Government? Pressure from informed consumers/home owners? Gee, I don't know, but I am interested in finding out.
As I drive at sixty miles an hour and view our landscapes through my "Horticulture Goggles", I wonder if my industry will someday receive a much needed kick in the a**. Who knows?
Rich
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
maybe you will be the one to kick them
ReplyDeleteAmen, I say! Especially with regard to the tree planting choices that make you go cross-eyed. I fear that the problem, in many of the cases you're looking at, is actually well-intentioned city government forcing unreasonable planting choices on builders (and, in some cases, homeowners). As I'm sure you're aware, for every tree measuring over 19" in diameter that needs to be removed for a building project, a tree ordinance review application must be approved for that removal. The city, as a condition of the removal, usually requires mitigation in the form of so many inches of re-planted material. It's an attempt to prevent people from arbitrarily removing trees (particularly the mature ones), and to try and replace the green material that is removed. In my opinion, a worthy effort. But the problem is that beyond that requirement, there's little to no guidance on, for example, "what might be an appropriate choice for my available space?" Additionally, if we're being honest about it, there's little-to-no spot checking to see that the mitigation requirements are fulfilled in the first place. To drive home the point, I heard of one person who, to fulfill their construction mitigation requirements, planted several 3-inch trees, and then cut them all down 6 months later. After all, they were small enough that he didn't need a permit to remove them! And the rigamarole with the trees was still a lot cheaper than losing the building contract. So, yeah, it's a bit of a flawed system. And I think it explains why you often see (especially around new construction) ridiculous planting choices - at least when it comes to trees. In the city's defense, though, they do count smaller trees like Mountain Laurels and Yaupons as qualifying class I trees - appropriate choices for mitigation. You don't HAVE to plant a Burr oak, for God's sake. But people are confused and hesitant about the multi-trunk calculations, and whether or not they'll end up having the city check up on them and find that they haven't actually met the caliper requirements. Also in the city's defence, most (if not all...can't remember)of the trees on its approved list are, in fact, native species....so they're trying...
ReplyDeleteBut, in sum, you're right. But you're right with the following qualification - A lot of time and money IS being spent - and, yes, spent wastefully, in many cases - but the intentions are good. The problem is both education - people taking the easy way out and not really being aware of their options - as well as beaurocracy - who the hell is going to do the educating, and who's going to do the enforcement?
We have rules, but with nearly no support for those who are trying to follow the rules.
Okay. I'm done with my diatribe.
And FYI, the people who install these trees know damn well what's going to happen in 5-10 years. They just don't have a big enough stake in the game to care.
Okay now I'm really done.
Thanks for the Just Trees plug on your blog!! That's why we love you.
And just FYI, we would never allow a client to plant a Burr oak in a six-foot wide easement. So pass it on.!!
OH, geez, I guess I'm not done. I just wanted to provide you with an antidote to all the doom and gloom: There's a new restaurant going in at Glenview and 35th - it's going to be called El Arbol. As you might surmise, the focal point of the restaurant is a gi-normous, beautiful Live oak over the deck/patio seating area. These people have done literally everything within their power to make a safe haven for the tree - fertilization, cabling, planned a custom drip irrigation system just for the tree, have even revised their building plans (revised the type and geometry of the foundation) in order to accomodate and protect the critical root zone of the tree. I kind of can't wait to be a patron of this restaurant. I just hope the food doesn't suck....
ReplyDelete