Submitted by Zfusco t3_yevrez in philadelphia
All in the title. Seriously, how fucking short-sighted can we be.
Comments
PhillyAccount t1_iu0ayen wrote
Short sighted is blocking housing for a tree. You can plant more trees.
BasileusLeoIII t1_iu0c72c wrote
the trees OP is talking about have lived for longer than these stickbuilt shitboxes they're replaced with will ever last
[deleted] t1_iu0cyzb wrote
[removed]
The_Prince1513 t1_iu0dnpt wrote
One I can think of in my neighborhood is the massive block-sized vacant warehouse in Olde Kensington between Master and Jefferson and Howard and Maascher. It's nice that it's being renovated and businesses will be moving in, but they re-did the sidewalk around the entire thing and tore down almost all the trees that surrounded it. Most of these trees were like 30 feet tall. There should have been more effort made to keep them.
ParallelPeterParker t1_iu0nvfm wrote
an additional layer of bureaucracy, i'm sure, will be used only for good and not create future headaches and a warped sense of values.
Dryheavemorning t1_iu0q9av wrote
Yeah I'm in the neighborhood too, I hope the ones they pruned back and hit with trucks on Mascher survive. Based on the renderings I think they plan to replant on Master but it does suck they got rid of at least a couple on Master.
dotcom-jillionaire t1_iu0ud0c wrote
sometimes the trees prevent the sidewalks from being handled properly. what really sucks is the city had no idea what species to plant 150 years ago and now we have a lot of old beautiful trees that screw up our infrastructure/utilities/etc
Acrobatic_Advance_71 t1_iu0ur6r wrote
We just need he city to take ownership of the sidewalks. Plant trees on blocks and not care if you want it or not. And provide free pruning and removal when necessary.
Hanger-on t1_iu0vw0b wrote
They lopped down several big trees on Broad when they built the Target and Sprouts at Washington which I’m still kinda mad about
[deleted] t1_iu0w3to wrote
[deleted]
Zfusco OP t1_iu0x9uc wrote
Definitely using the term loosely.
Zfusco OP t1_iu0xhea wrote
Have watched a number of 3-4 story tall trees come down in manayunk and roxborough as new homes get built up.
One less than a block away today.
Zfusco OP t1_iu0yj1p wrote
Can't think of a worse take. The house they knocked over to build on the lot that held the one I saw come down today was built in the fifties. This tree was taller than my 4 story home, the tree was 100% there before that house was, and would probably have been there when these become dated and get bulldozed in another 80 years.
Neighborhoods with fewer trees are uglier, hotter, have worse drainage problems in the soil, etc. etc.
The tree was on the edge of the lot, totally healthy. There was 0 reason to tear it down other than having to potentially do maintenance in the future, and a developer not wanting to have to deal with a large tree on shared HOA property.
It was almost certainly a heritage tree, but everyone knows the city doesn't give a shit about that.
sgt_seriousface t1_iu0yx3k wrote
They just recently took down 2 more on the other side of Washington, in front of the Yacht Club apartments
hethuisje t1_iu10iv7 wrote
You can also build housing without destroying trees.
TreeMac12 t1_iu130vx wrote
They should tax saws and axes,
PhillyAccount t1_iu147mw wrote
>having to potentially do maintenance in the future, and a developer not wanting to have to deal with a large tree on shared HOA property.
You named two potential reasons right there. There's also the root system impacting potential utility lines and foundation, insurance, etc.
There is a bill that would apply new fees for removing trees that developers are supposed to pay if they don't save / replace trees on the lot.
Personally I think the whole premise is dumb as regulations against building in dense urban environments encourage greenfield development in exurban areas that require the clearing of forests, not to mention that auto-oriented development patterns objectively worse for the environment. Your objections seem to be around the fact that you like big trees in your neighborhood - fair, but that's just as selfish of a reason as the developer taking the tree down to make construction easier.
Mailstoop t1_iu149e8 wrote
You should buy the property so you can decide what to do with it.
lbrol t1_iu14fdy wrote
no need for anything new, just give the parks department more power. in NYC you need parks approval to cut down any tree in city right of way, if you want to cut down an old tree you have to give a good reason and then pay like $100,000 in restitution. I've worked on several projects were the developer couldn't give a shit about trees and I'm like Parks will make it a headache for you! and they're like fine we'll shift the loading dock.
nayls142 t1_iu14niu wrote
Can't wait to sit on 311. "Yes the branch broke through my window. It wouldn't have if you took care of it three years ago after the first time I called"
Zfusco OP t1_iu14ras wrote
Funny, or maybe we could all just give a shit about the city we live in.
I do own a property, it had no trees on it before I bought it, they'll be putting a street tree in front of it in two weeks.
LakeSun t1_iu14txf wrote
There ought to be a rule.
Take one down, plant 20.
LakeSun t1_iu14xod wrote
That increases everyone's AC bill, it's like 20 degrees hotter.
Zfusco OP t1_iu16edp wrote
> You named two potential reasons right there. There's also the root system impacting potential utility lines and foundation, insurance, etc.
Too bad? Don't buy an 800k new construction if 25$ a month of extra homeowners insurance is a problem.
> There's also the root system impacting potential utility lines and foundation, insurance, etc
And yet it's been fine for at least 70+ years.
That bill is a great step.
> Personally I think the whole premise is dumb as regulations against building in dense urban environments encourage greenfield development in exurban areas that require the clearing of forests
I'm not saying 0 trees should be taken down for construction under any circumstances, I'm saying that the city should heavily disincentivize removing trees that are not prohibiting the construction of anything. Taking down a tree because people buying expensive homes don't want to deal with maintenance is a garbage reason.
> not to mention that auto-oriented development patterns objectively worse for the environment
Without getting into the fact that there's absolutely enough housing, and we don't really need to build more, tearing down urban trees to prevent maintenance concerns is far from what's driving deforestation. Tearing down tree's to build more housing is also not the primary driver of deforestation, agriculture is.
> Your objections seem to be around the fact that you like big trees in your neighborhood - fair, but that's just as selfish of a reason as the developer taking the tree down to make construction easier.
That's pretty reductive. I specifically pointed out that it's better to leave them for several reasons, heat, drainage, the aesthetics, etc. If you want to reduce that to "you like them" then sure, I like tree's in the same way that I like eating and breathing.
Bartleby_TheScrivene t1_iu19f88 wrote
Nimby
Zfusco OP t1_iu1a6kc wrote
Low effort nonsense comment?
Bartleby_TheScrivene t1_iu1aayz wrote
It's fine if they remove trees, as long as it's not where you live, tight?
Zfusco OP t1_iu1b77j wrote
No?
It's not fine if they remove trees, they should leave every tree they possibly can.
8Draw t1_iu1bw7f wrote
Were they actual old growth or those weed trees that spring up 30 feet in a summer? After a couple years those can be a real problem.
internet_friends t1_iu1ees5 wrote
1000000%. Trees not only look great (and raise property values), they also help cool down the areas below significantly in the summer. I like the free tree program a lot, but the city needs to offer more resources on what trees have been planted and what those trees need. So many people assume you don't need to water or prune street trees, for example. I'd love it if the city stepped up and did this, but I'm not getting my hopes up. It's such a small change that could have such a big impact.
Zfusco OP t1_iu1fpgc wrote
The tree that prompted my post was a red oak at least 45 feet tall, and I would estimate 2' - 2.5' in diameter. I've seen plenty of large pine and oak come down in the manayunk, roxborough and east falls areas in the last year that were not blocking construction at all.
NoWarButMyWar t1_iu1hn0h wrote
How is wanting your city to look like something other than a concrete jungle a “warped” sense of values?
AbsentEmpire t1_iu1ljva wrote
So therefore we should build no new housing?
That's a very short sighted take, we can plant new trees and we can build new houses that will benefit everyone today and a generation from now.
[deleted] t1_iu1lkh5 wrote
AbsentEmpire t1_iu1lvtt wrote
Hmm I live here, and I give a shit about the city, and I think building more housing is a greater good then leaving a previously developed lot vacant for a tree that we can just replant.
It's not like trees are an endangered species that can't possibly grow literally everywhere.
I would rather dense urban development be perused and green space outside the city preserved for nature, rather than turned into shitty developments named for the thing they destroyed.
[deleted] t1_iu1m49z wrote
[removed]
ParallelPeterParker t1_iu1m90t wrote
If you think such a commission would produce those values, I've got some land in along the Schuylkill to sell you!
AbsentEmpire t1_iu1mbmh wrote
And people should live where exactly?
BasileusLeoIII t1_iu1ngm4 wrote
>So therefore we should build no new housing?
yeah that's totally what we said
or the city could consider the preservation of street trees in its permit approval processes when feasible
KlimRous t1_iu1o2zn wrote
Well clearly the Parks Dept doesn't give a shit so.....
lbrol t1_iu1os4h wrote
they probably do, they just need the power to actually review, then a lot of employees to review plans.
mikewilkinsjr t1_iu1qr8v wrote
About to happen at 13th and bainbridge. Grass lot + 5 mature trees got auctioned off by the city for apartments. Neighbors fought it for months but one of the neighborhood coalitions changed their mind after the developer added a couple of parking spots.
Sounds good on paper but only 13 units fit the “affordable “ threshold, the rest are just market rate.
Zfusco OP t1_iu1y3jo wrote
In the houses? What are you missing here?
There was already a house on the lot, they knocked that one down and built 5 more on the lot. Then cut down the tree.
This happens all the time.
Zfusco OP t1_iu1yh5b wrote
They're not mutually exclusive. There are already enough dwellings for everyone who lives here, we can renovate, hell we can knock down the old ones and build on the lots again. We wouldn't be having this conversation if there literally weren't houses for people. We're still 400,000 people below the peak occupancy of the city. It's not a demand for houses that's the problem here.
The footprint of the houses that are built on this lot is already established, the tree didn't have to go at all, it was a convenience matter. Tree's that are not blocking development are cut down all the time, and that's what the post is about.
Zfusco OP t1_iu1zb1e wrote
100%. I'm not knocking the parks dept, the horticultural society, etc. They do a fantastic job with what I'm assuming is not a huge budget.
Zfusco OP t1_iu1zhde wrote
For anyone that's actually worried about this, the tool library of philadelphia will rent you a pruning saw for like, 7$ or something.
nayls142 t1_iu24eiy wrote
It's the principle. Give the city a new responsibility, and before very long, we're paying more taxes and still responsible to do it ourselves
AnotherChrisHall t1_iu25fnc wrote
Just remember this is the city where folks cut down new trees to stop gentrification and to protect the most scared of Philadelphia cows "THE PARKING SPOT" so It's really not that surprising. Disgusting, but not surprising.
OopsIShardedAgain t1_iu283qh wrote
You’re gunna love this story then: our neighbor chopped down the only big beautiful tree on our block cause he “got tired of sweeping up the leaves.”
lbrol t1_iu2b7dy wrote
the sidewalk is city property
[deleted] t1_iu2di7a wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iu2gm1l wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iu2l1zm wrote
[removed]
alblaster t1_iu2nhnt wrote
any tree that's thiiiiiiiiiiis big.
ComradeNapolein t1_iu2w422 wrote
Ignore him, this guy would strangle the Lorax if he could.
ComradeNapolein t1_iu2wiys wrote
Short sighted is chopping down a tree that's provided shade for the block for a century just so a construction vehicle doesn't have to go around it!
project199x t1_iu33e85 wrote
I hate it!!
My block was lined with trees, now the majority of them are gone. You can definitely tell the difference in the summertime. The temp of the house was so damn cool when we had trees! Tried to get some planted by the city. Ultimate failure
soundax t1_iu3d045 wrote
PHS will prune trees if they plant them on the block, from what I understand
jersey_girl660 t1_iu3qftn wrote
Bro not everyone is capable of doing their own tree work. Cool if you are though
jengibredia t1_iu3vtq4 wrote
Yes humans really destroy hundreds of years old trees with no hesitation. When the earth is dry and arid in 100 years we will be desperate for the trees we cut down for strip malls, parking lots, and anticipated complications with our basement storage.
lordredsnake t1_iu3wo4b wrote
There is a rule now: https://www.pennfuture.org/Blog-Item-Philly-Tree-Fund-Bill-A-Significant-Step-in-Protection-of-Tree-Canopy
Trees must be replaced depending on the size of the tree, or money must be paid into the Tree Fund to pay for the replacement elsewhere. It's a step in the right direction but needs to be stronger. It's anywhere from 10-20° cooler in tree-filled NW Philly than it is in treeless concrete hellscape South Philly on hot summer days, and it's only getting worse with Parks and Rec cutting down hundreds of mature trees in FDR Park.
Our own Parks system under Kathryn Ott Lovell with the help of the Fairmount Parks Conservancy under Maura McCarthy singlehandedly undid the benefits of years of street tree planting in one fell swoop this summer.
Kind of a joke to worry about what developers are doing when the city isn't subject to the same restrictions.
lordredsnake t1_iu3x5le wrote
Agreed with OP.
But Parks and Rec just cut down hundreds of mature and heritage trees in FDR Park this summer and is planning on cutting down dozens of acres more as part of the Master Plan, and that is going to have a far greater impact than any development in the city you can point to.
biscuitman76 t1_iu43nht wrote
Eat shit
Mailstoop t1_iu47jc6 wrote
Bro you even live in philly?
LakeSun t1_iu4ajum wrote
It ought to be 2x or 3x.
biscuitman76 t1_iu4dl7o wrote
BRO lived and worked there years "aRe YoU eVeN fRoM hErE"
[deleted] t1_iu4f3ob wrote
[removed]
A_Peke_Named_Goat t1_iu4ibj5 wrote
eh, better to put another few humans in this low-carbon usage city than some sprawl way up 476.
Mailstoop t1_iu4m5ms wrote
Ohh man we all miss you so much come back lol
FordMaverickFan t1_iu4ta05 wrote
They claim to but in reality don’t. Everything to maintain the tree is out of pocket
I have a street tree and after it was planted they gave me a list of professionals I could call.
TheBSQ t1_iu50o4b wrote
My bedroom used to have a lovely view of a big beautiful magnolia tree. The owner of that house sold, and the flippers that bought it cut it down to build the ugliest fucking deck I’ve ever seen in my life (it’s cement, covered with astroturf, with a cheap plastic fence).
Not my property, but it sucks that my once gorgeous view of blossoms is now some ugly astroturf patio.
ialwaysendupdeleting t1_iu5l7sq wrote
The sentiment on this sub is “no bro please just build more condos bro please just try it I swear it’ll make housing cheaper once all the 500k units are sold bro trust me please we just need to build mega complexes of 500 square foot boxes bro then everyone will have housing I promise”
Dryheavemorning t1_iu0am0b wrote
Got an example you are thinking of?