[artvandelay]

I don’t know the variety those smaller trees in the forefront, but look to be doing well in those tree planters.

View attachment 403556

It's only been 10-15 years since the "urban boulevard" project was completed and the state of the landscaping features on 16th Avenue is atrocious - dead/dying trees and planters overgrown with weeds. Those planters have an irrigation system that I don't think has ever been turned on. I guess the City prefers to re-plant trees every few years without watering them enough to actually grow.

 

[artvandelay]

I think the City probably deals with a lot of complaints about the fluff. But agreed. Poplars were pretty important for Calgary in even establishing a canopy.

Only certain varieties create the fluff - I don't think the City allows poplars for public trees anymore (or discourages them), I'm assuming due to the roots destroying sidewalks.

 

[Surrealplaces]

Unfortunately, Urban Forestry’s current service plan is focused on maintaining established trees, and not planting new trees. They will need a budgetary boost in order to increase the canopy from 8.25% to the 16% target by 2060.

I’m sure the City has at least looked at the federal “2 Billion Trees Program” for funding, and if they haven’t, they should, because other municipalities have received funding, although I think the grants to municipalities have been minimal (few hundred thousand dollars), but every little bit helps and we might as well get any funding out of the feds that we can.

A few hundred thousand would be great, as any amount is good. If we could plant 2000 trees that were paid for by the feds, that'd be great.

One thing disappointing is coming in from the airport, whether down Deerfoot, Airport Trail or down Metis trail, one sees nothing but bald ass prairie. At least if the city could plant and maintain trees along Airport Trail, and Deerfoot from airport Trail to Memorial, that would go a long way to giving a better initial impression for visitors.

 

[Zoom]

Only certain varieties create the fluff - I don't think the City allows poplars for public trees anymore (or discourages them), I'm assuming due to the roots destroying sidewalks.

If I'm not mistaken, the fluff comes from the Cottonwood variety. Specifically the male ones.

 

[UrbanWarrior]

Off topic of the current conversation, but does anyone in the know (botany I guess?) think we’re gonna have a frig load of dead trees next spring due to this insane 26° to -17° within two weeks nonsense we’re experiencing?

 

[Mountain Man]

Most of the trees had already dropped their leaves, so they are fine I would think. It's the years that we have a cold sap like this while there are still green leaves.

 

[Surrealplaces]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/city-tree-giveaway-canopy-council-1.6758671

City offers up 2,000 free trees for residents to grow Calgary's canopy​

 

[Just build it]

It’s too bad the city wasn’t offering up 20,000. This city needs a heck of a lot more trees.

 

[Nawads]

Great that the city is offering up some free trees. But agree with @Just build it, 2000 is a drop in the bucket, and wouldn't be noticeable when they're spread across the city. At least from the sounds of it, these are mature trees being given away, so good likely hood a majority of them would survive.

 

[lemongrab]

We lost a big beautiful tree in the October snowstorm, so I'm hoping to snag a replacement through this program.

I'd imagine well over 2000 trees collapsed in that storm (unless it was a really localized storm, I don't remember)...I'm sure most would get replaced eventually, but with the current cost of living, I could see it being a later than sooner thing for a lot of people. Which is all to say I doubt this 2000 will mean much more than status quo.

 

[Surrealplaces]

I like a lot of things about Calgary, but its tree cover isn't one of them. I know it's somewhat challenging to grow trees here with our dry prairie climate and bad soil, but I think the city could do more.

If the city offered to hike my property tax $5 a month to go a a tree planting and maintenance fund, I'd be down with it.

 

[Patrick.1980]

Calgary has a little over a half million dwellings and at five dollars a month that would be around $12 or 13 million a year (rough estimate of course).
If 2000 trees cost the city $90,000, you could easily do 200,000 trees in one year. That would be far more than people would need, but the city does need to plant more trees along roadways, etc..
Also, it wouldn’t hurt the city to plant at least one tree in the north east. Last time I flew into Calgary and came in over the northeast it looked like Kandahar.

 

[adamyyc]

It’s unfortunate that tree canopy isn’t a higher priority for the City. This program is incredibly popular. I’ve tried to get a free tree for a few years and they’re always out before I get around to it, so I planted an autumn blaze maple last year (wanted to add some fall colour to the neighborhood) but not everyone can afford to plant a tree (particularly if they pay to have the hole augered). Spending millions of dollars on providing free trees to citizens and planting trees on public lands is a relatively cheap and easy way to have a meaningful impact on the health and happiness of citizens. I’d absolutely be in favour of an increase in my taxes to plant more trees and maintain the City’s canopy!

 

[Surrealplaces]

If the city wants to have a canopy of 16% by 2060, they'll need to up their game a bit, both in trees for people to plant on their property and trees planted on public property.

Calgary has a little over a half million dwellings and at five dollars a month that would be around $12 or 13 million a year (rough estimate of course).
If 2000 trees cost the city $90,000, you could easily do 200,000 trees in one year. That would be far more than people would need, but the city does need to plant more trees along roadways, etc..
Also, it wouldn’t hurt the city to plant at least one tree in the north east. Last time I flew into Calgary and came in over the northeast it looked like Kandahar.

Even $2/month would add a lot of trees, and it doesn't have to be forever, it could be like a 5 year plan. The only problem is, people would complain, even at a couple of bucks a month, and soon after there would be other groups asking for a $2 per month tax increase to support other things that are needed.

 

[DougB]

If the city wants to have a canopy of 16% by 2060, they'll need to up their game a bit, both in trees for people to plant on their property and trees planted on public property.


Even $2/month would add a lot of trees, and it doesn't have to be forever, it could be like a 5 year plan. The only problem is, people would complain, even at a couple of bucks a month, and soon after there would be other groups asking for a $2 per month tax increase to support other things that are needed.

It is a great concept that is likely to fail:
-the free trees will likely be small seedlings which almost always die in Calgary
-as others have pointed out, trees need extensive watering for about the first 5 years. The City seems incapable of doing this. Citizens are better, but few seem willing to invest the time and money
-Calgary's unique climate more or less guarantees trees planted in boxes or boulevards will die
-road salt seems to kill any tree that is touches. Guessing this is due to lack of precipitation to wash it away

The BP Birth Place forest was the only successful tree planting program I can remember.