urbanSTL

TGE-ATW wrote:Globe Drug sells beer.

But they close early.

Framer wrote:Heck, I can't even find a six-pack to-go on Cherokee.

Uh...?

Daron, there seemed to have been some server problems yesterday that affected posting... a few posts on some other threads also seem to have been lost so I don't think it was anything personal.

Chris_on_Kingsbury wrote:Also, it looks like all of the street trees were recently removed, and it's an improvement: much more open, combined with tall street lights. It's vibrant at night.

I understand the importance of picking appropriate trees (in terms of mature size, canopy shape, etc) and maintaining them well, but periodic clear-cutting (judging by the stump size, the trees couldn't have been there very long) isn't a thoughtful long-term solution. I went to Cherokee for the Open Studios event, walking along the street from basically Grand to Jefferson, and it was boiling hot without the shade. If we want more pedestrian activity (which I think we all do), we have to make the pedestrian experience more pleasant. In the St. Louis summer the shade from street trees is a big part of that.

rbeedee wrote:I understand the importance of picking appropriate trees (in terms of mature size, canopy shape, etc) and maintaining them well, but periodic clear-cutting (judging by the stump size, the trees couldn't have been there very long) isn't a thoughtful long-term solution.

But it's not a long-term solution, right? Aren't the trees being replaced?

DaronDierkes wrote:

debaliviere wrote:

rbeedee wrote:I understand the importance of picking appropriate trees (in terms of mature size, canopy shape, etc) and maintaining them well, but periodic clear-cutting (judging by the stump size, the trees couldn't have been there very long) isn't a thoughtful long-term solution.

But it's not a long-term solution, right? Aren't the trees being replaced?

Thank you rbeedee. You're right. We'll replace the trees and they'll be babies for years offering very little shade until one day, perhaps in less than ten years, we decide to put in a pipe or something ten feet away and figure it'd be better to just cut down and replace the trees while we're at it. The point is that we don't keep trees over a long term. We don't transplant them elsewhere. We don't administer medicine to them when they're sick. We don't consider them across different planning divisions (Ameren, MSD, the streets department, etc.). Whatever trees are going to be planted on Cherokee will probably not be around long.

Or maybe they will. The bradford pears that used to line Cherokee certainly were.

Is this really worth worrying about?

Alex Ihnen wrote:^ I think it's a significant issue and one that requires coordinated planning. The Bradford Pear tree planted by the City in front of my neighbor's home five years ago is just now getting large enough to provide some shade for cars parked on the street and to provide some visual depth to the street. The Maple the City planted in front of my home grows more slowly. It will be another 5-10yrs before it reaches any real size. The point is that trees should be a long-term investment and that requires coordinated planning and support.

I think everyone knows now that Bradford Pears are a horrible choice for street trees, and I don't think there's any way that the city would ever use them for street trees again.

Alex Ihnen wrote:I think they're still planting them in FPSE.

That's idiotic. Is it homeowners doing the planting, or the city? The trees selected for the Cherokee streetscape plan are Hedge Maple, English Oak, and Japanese Zelkova.

Alex Ihnen wrote:Homeowners aren't planting trees in FPSE!

It's the City - at least as of this past planting season. I'll take a look around and see how many are bradford pears. Can anyone tell at a glance if these are bradford pear trees? http://wumc.wordpress.com/2010/04/02/it ... #more-1643

Shoot, that site is blocked here at work.

I do know that there is another species of pear tree - the Chanticleer Pear - that is much better suited as a street tree. It's taller and thinner/narrower than Bradfords, so they don't have the problems that Bradfords do. They do, however, still flower in the spring. Hopefully whatever's being planted now is the Chanticleer and not the Bradford.

(Worked in a tree nursery and as a landscaper through h.s. and college )

I haven’t been in St. Louis that long, but my impression is that the powers that be like to wipe the slate clean in a given area from time to time, propose a new plan, and then execute said plan with varying degrees of success. That’s what I worry about when someone proposes doing away with something that is already in place and functional in exchange for something “new and better.” Maybe the new trees will be well-cared for and in 10 years Cherokee will have decent street trees and shade again. On the other hand, maybe the saplings will be cared for briefly until attention is turned elsewhere, and then they’ll be left to fend for themselves. Some will become established and hardy while others die and leave gaps in the line.

Even though Bradford pears aren’t ideal street trees (mess from the blossoms, smell, propensity to fracture, etc), they were established trees, much hardier and requiring less care than saplings. If different trees are more appropriate, by all means let’s swap them out, but why not do it incrementally over the space of a few years rather than in one fell swoop? Why not hedge our bets by leaving some trees intact? It doesn’t seem like that should incompatible with the rest of the streetscape plans. Would it be much more expensive?

jmstokes wrote:I'll rest on their expertise vs. my absolutely no knowledge of trees.

Let's trust the experts, but let's also keep them on their toes. Even experts make mistakes, and it's not unreasonable for engaged citizens (e.g., the people on this forum) to point out errors we think we've made.

I ate lunch at La Vellasana today. Lots of sidewalk work being done on Cherokee.

The new La Vellasana patio really looks great! I love the stained concrete.