Fourth Street Trees??

Driving past Fourth Street and 19th Avenue East today I noticed some signs saying that by 2016 all of the trees along Fourth Street would be gone. I have no idea if these signs are new, but can someone tell me what that is all about? True?

If someone wants to add a picture of the signs and tree huggers (clothes nailed to the tree to look like people hugging the trees), feel free, I didn’t have a camera along.

7 Comments

N8B

about 2 months ago

Looks like it's true: 4th Street (County Road 9) Construction Project Check out the Boulevarde Tree Assessments, looks like they are taking out a bunch of trees.

brian

about 2 months ago

Here's a link to info on the project: 4th Street (County Road 9) Construction Project And another link to a slideshow from the meeting last week. The photo of the treehugger is from the slideshow. As I understand it, the trees will be removed, but replaced (with younger trees) because the construction, utility work etc will probably kill or put them at risk anyway.

N8B

about 2 months ago

Yeah they're saying: "Plans for tree replacement were also investigated and include using more mature trees for replanting and replacing trees at the rate of two planted for every tree removed. A variety of tree species that are well suited for urban boulevards will be utilized." Sounds like bike lanes will be incorporated as well.

Ramos

about 2 months ago

Richard Thomas did an article on this in June for the Budgeteer. End of the big trees on East 4th Street?

wskyline

about 2 months ago

Thanks for all of the information! It will be sad to see those beautiful trees go.

Chickonen

about 2 months ago

Shocking news indeed. I was surprised to read in the Budgeteer story that trees can survive having as much as half their root system disrupted. Is it fair to say that it's almost always possible to preserve trees, but that the effort brings additional cost and uncertainty to the project? The conclusion tends to be that there are no alternatives and there is nothing we can do. But doesn't this ultimately come down to our priorities and standards? Development and infrastructure projects are always cheapest when we raze the land before hand. Can't we insist on a balanced approach?

Leave a Comment

Only registerd members can post a comment , Login / Register Here