News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

From the weekend:

Excuse our Appearance............New Forest Under Construction:

1603134024275.png
 
There's a palm tree enthusiast in the Toronto area who grows palm trees in his yard successfully:

 
^ No clue about the viability of palms in Toronto, but why would somebody plant a tree that close to the house?
 
What happens to those trees? Do they keep getting replaced? Does the condo board or city give up and pace it over?

(Actually, I’ve realized I’ve no idea who is responsible for those trees).
 
What happens to those trees? Do they keep getting replaced? Does the condo board or city give up and pace it over?

(Actually, I’ve realized I’ve no idea who is responsible for those trees).

A contractor planting a tree on behalf of the City, normally, and I'd assume (but don't know) the developer here, would be on the hook for 2 years from the date of planting to replace them.

After that, the City picks up the tab on any tree located within the ROW/sidewalk.

In those conditions, I'd expect perpetual replacement.

A contractor would probably honour the warranty anyway, simply because they will likely have a very large contract with the City (thousands of trees), and eating a couple of sure replacements is just the cost of doing business.

But I'd be surprised to seem much in those conditions make it to a third year in passable condition.
 
After that, the City picks up the tab on any tree located within the ROW/sidewalk.

In those conditions, I'd expect perpetual replacement.
It seems like it would be better for the city to work with the developer/condo board to reposition those planters? I assume that’s impossible given the coordination required and the money involved?

Current situation seems just bad for residents as a whole.
 
It seems like it would be better for the city to work with the developer/condo board to reposition those planters? I assume that’s impossible given the coordination required and the money involved?

Current situation seems just bad for residents as a whole.

The planters are in the public ROW, no coordination is required, except in so far as the City made a financial ask.

However, the City approved the current placement (I assume, inexplicably), so I don't think there is any ask to be made.

Its simply a choice.

Now, that said, as I noted above, there may well be utilities impairing better placement.

If a quality tree pit/trench isn't viable; they should consider alternatives.

The City did this behind 700 Bay (no tree, just shrubs/grasses)

1603199203473.png


I assume, I don't know, this was done due to insufficient root space for trees (though it may have been for sightlines also, in light of how close it is to the curb)
 
As a side note, it occurs to me, that if the City doesn't want to spec stone or other attractive cladding for concrete planters, it could consider specking the dyeing of concrete.

You could easily dye the concrete tan, or terra cotta.

Also, if they standardize the form, they could easily do standardized bolt-on seats on the ends, and a slim wood or metal rim plate over the top on the sides. Just a thought.
 
@Northern Light you inadvertently brought up a new question in the posts above. When planting street trees are undesirable for various reasons, what are the best native (or non-native) shrub/bush species to use as an alternative?

I assume insufficient root space is the main reason why you would opt for a shrub instead of a tree, but is there a clear cutoff point for soil depth or cubic feet/metres for planters that could be used as a rule-of-thumb for when street trees are not sustainable?
 
There's a palm tree enthusiast in the Toronto area who grows palm trees in his yard successfully:

There are some pretty impressive palms not far from the beach in Port Dover. I was quite surprised to see them there. Not sure what is involved in helping them survive the winter.
 
There are some pretty impressive palms not far from the beach in Port Dover. I was quite surprised to see them there. Not sure what is involved in helping them survive the winter.

Each of the trees stand approximately 15 feet tall and remain along the beach for the next five months or so. When fall arrives, the trees are then sent back to a greenhouse where they can be protected from frost damage.

 
The planters are in the public ROW, no coordination is required, except in so far as the City made a financial ask.

However, the City approved the current placement (I assume, inexplicably), so I don't think there is any ask to be made.

Its simply a choice.

Now, that said, as I noted above, there may well be utilities impairing better placement.

If a quality tree pit/trench isn't viable; they should consider alternatives.

The City did this behind 700 Bay (no tree, just shrubs/grasses)

View attachment 277966

I assume, I don't know, this was done due to insufficient root space for trees (though it may have been for sightlines also, in light of how close it is to the curb)
I assume in such situations you could also do some smaller decorative trees like standards. Although sightlines would be a consideration.
 
It is possible, in theory, to protect some palm species enough to sustain them through a Toronto winter; the video from the fellow posted above suggests he's been able to keep at least 2 of them alive through 2 winters.

But you have to wrap them/protect them.

Its bit of work............err.........the bigger they get, the more work it is!
 
@Northern Light you inadvertently brought up a new question in the posts above. When planting street trees are undesirable for various reasons, what are the best native (or non-native) shrub/bush species to use as an alternative?

I assume insufficient root space is the main reason why you would opt for a shrub instead of a tree, but is there a clear cutoff point for soil depth or cubic feet/metres for planters that could be used as a rule-of-thumb for when street trees are not sustainable?

Trees begin to perform significantly less well below 30m3 of soil volume.

Some species (Honey Locust) can manage on less.......but they would still prefer more.

I would argue for a cut-off at 30m3; but it wouldn't be the end of the world if you had 28 etc. w/the right species.

***

A shrub could be preferred for sightline reasons; or in some cases, high wind (some shrubs are naturally coastal/shoreline species and can take high wind w/minimal risk of damage and no risk of large limbs falling on a member of the public.

But certainly, less soil volume would indicate that a plant that consumes less resources would be a wise choice.

Though there are certainly many factors to consider all the same.

Just as with trees, some prefer sun, some shade, some prefer their feet damp, others are quite drought tolerant.

One also needs to be mindful of how much fruit might drop, and where.

Also not all shrubs are short.

Alternate-Leaf Dogwood is a shrub, but can reach 20ft tall.

Even Grey Dogwood, which is comparatively shorter, can easily give you 10ft (though 6-8 is probably way more common here)

One of the safer, native choices would likely be Bush Honeysuckle (Diervilla lonicera)

Below is actually a 'dwarf cultivar'. But the wild ones tend to only grow to 3-4ft.

1603241509108.png

from: https://bluethumb.org/plants/diervilla-lonicera/
 

Back
Top