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

  1. N8B N8B on July 29, 2014 at 8:31 pm

    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.

  2. brian brian on July 29, 2014 at 8:33 pm

    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.

  3. N8B N8B on July 29, 2014 at 8:36 pm

    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.

  4. Ramos Ramos on July 29, 2014 at 9:59 pm

    Richard Thomas did an article on this in June for the Budgeteer.

    End of the big trees on East 4th Street?

  5. wskyline wskyline on July 31, 2014 at 9:37 am

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

  6. Chickonen Chickonen on July 31, 2014 at 1:13 pm

    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?

  7. Chris Chris on August 3, 2014 at 8:50 am

Leave a Comment





The maximum upload file size: 1 MB. You can upload: image, audio. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here