[PRO] North Terrace/Morphett Street | Trinity City | ~105m | 27 Levels | Office

[ChillyPhilly]

Why is a species of tree native to another part of the world protected is the question.
What's it's significance other then a trunk circumference greater then 2m

I'll try to find the papers and link to them when I get the time but I was reading into this a few months ago. In a nutshell, deciduous (i.e. almost exclusively exotic) trees are typically superior to most Australian native trees for mitigating urban heat island effect due to their denser canopies. The one edge natives tend to have in this regard is they trap less heat at ground level overnight due to the aforementioned sparser canopy, but that's at the expense of preventing heat build-up in the first place.

In urban environments it's therefore arguable that many mature exotic trees are just as, if not more, worthy of protection (and planting) as natives.

With regards to trunk circumference, this is in most cases directly related to maturity and therefore canopy cover so it makes sense to preserve the biggest examples which have the greatest impacts.

Exactly. A tree is a tree. Native trees are valuable, but so are exotic ones.

Its also worth pointing out that many "native" trees are not actually native to Adelaide. Why exactly is a tree like a lemon-scented gum (native to Queensland) more valuable than a celtis (native to North America)? Neither are from this place, and neither are part of its native ecosystem.

All large trees should be preserved at all cost, because they take so long to replace. However, we also need better protection for all other urban vegetation - smaller trees and bushes make up the majority of the urban greenery that off-sets the urban heat island effect and provides homes for wildlife.

Urban infill has become the bogeyman for decreasing urban tree cover, but as I see it, the main issue is actually with demolition practices. Often, vegetation on a building site would actually fit around what is proposed to be built. However, unless forced by law to protect particular trees, demolition contractors always completely level the block, destroying all vegetation right up to the fence-line, presumably because it is the easiest thing to do.

Rather than being able to destroy unregulated vegetation, developers should not be allowed to clear vegetation which falls outside of the footprint of the proposed building.

Housing design and maintenance has a lot to answer for, with there being a lack of open space (not just 'infill') and then a lack of place value which is important in maintaining and nurturing vegetation of all types on residential property.

[rev]

Why is a species of tree native to another part of the world protected is the question.
What's it's significance other then a trunk circumference greater then 2m

I'll try to find the papers and link to them when I get the time but I was reading into this a few months ago. In a nutshell, deciduous (i.e. almost exclusively exotic) trees are typically superior to most Australian native trees for mitigating urban heat island effect due to their denser canopies. The one edge natives tend to have in this regard is they trap less heat at ground level overnight due to the aforementioned sparser canopy, but that's at the expense of preventing heat build-up in the first place.

In urban environments it's therefore arguable that many mature exotic trees are just as, if not more, worthy of protection (and planting) as natives.

With regards to trunk circumference, this is in most cases directly related to maturity and therefore canopy cover so it makes sense to preserve the biggest examples which have the greatest impacts.

Exactly. A tree is a tree. Native trees are valuable, but so are exotic ones.

Its also worth pointing out that many "native" trees are not actually native to Adelaide. Why exactly is a tree like a lemon-scented gum (native to Queensland) more valuable than a celtis (native to North America)? Neither are from this place, and neither are part of its native ecosystem.

All large trees should be preserved at all cost, because they take so long to replace. However, we also need better protection for all other urban vegetation - smaller trees and bushes make up the majority of the urban greenery that off-sets the urban heat island effect and provides homes for wildlife.

Urban infill has become the bogeyman for decreasing urban tree cover, but as I see it, the main issue is actually with demolition practices. Often, vegetation on a building site would actually fit around what is proposed to be built. However, unless forced by law to protect particular trees, demolition contractors always completely level the block, destroying all vegetation right up to the fence-line, presumably because it is the easiest thing to do.

Rather than being able to destroy unregulated vegetation, developers should not be allowed to clear vegetation which falls outside of the footprint of the proposed building.

Nobody is saying they aren't valuable.
But, putting aside the trees at all costs mentality, shouldn't native trees and trees, and vegetation in general, that are sympathetic to the environs around us, and the native and not so native wild life be a priority, as opposed to "oh this tree took 100 years to grow to what it is now it should be saved"..
Trees that are non destructive to the surrounding area, that could be from the way the tree's root system grows out damaging things, or the types of birds for example that will habitat in a particular type of tree, a bird species that might be predatory to more fragile species say.

Are you a building contractor? I'm just curious because you insist that all building works can carry on as normal as if the trees weren't there..
I personally don't know, and having seen residential blocks that have had significantly sized gum trees for example left standing, I assume that a block is entirely cleared if it's necessary.

[Prodical]

Can we stop talking about trees now?

[Nort]

Nobody is saying they aren't valuable.
But, putting aside the trees at all costs mentality, shouldn't native trees and trees, and vegetation in general, that are sympathetic to the environs around us, and the native and not so native wild life be a priority, as opposed to "oh this tree took 100 years to grow to what it is now it should be saved"..

...they are.

This tangent started because of how the received approval that the tree in question didn't need to be saved.

[dbl96]

Are you a building contractor? I'm just curious because you insist that all building works can carry on as normal as if the trees weren't there..
I personally don't know, and having seen residential blocks that have had significantly sized gum trees for example left standing, I assume that a block is entirely cleared if it's necessary.

No I’m not. But logically I cannot see a practical reason why a lot of trees on construction sites need to be cut down. Often they are right up against the property boundary - they are outside the building footprint and there is no logical way they could possibly be impeding access during the construction process. Yet demolition contractors go out of their way to destroy these trees.

Based on my observations, it is very rare for any vegetation to be left on a demolished block. If it is, it has only been preserved because the they are required by law to preserve it, or if the demolition contractor has been specifically requested by the owner/developer to preserve trees.

There is certainly very little creative thinking about how existing trees could be integrated into the design of new buildings planned for a site. The general approach is to treat each block as a blank canvas.

I’m not just imagining this - it is well documented that urban tree cover in Adelaide has reduced substantially over the last decade. The main reason this is happening is because trees are cleared as part of the demolition process, and they are not replaced.

[Llessur2002]

But, putting aside the trees at all costs mentality, shouldn't native trees and trees, and vegetation in general, that are sympathetic to the environs around us, and the native and not so native wild life be a priority, as opposed to "oh this tree took 100 years to grow to what it is now it should be saved".

It depends on what the priority is. Providing food and habitat for native species, maybe there's an argument there. However, in an urban environment like metropolitan Adelaide then it's likely the more pressing concern is reducing the urban heat island effect. In which case exotics will often provide more of a benefit than natives so the opposite logic would apply.

But like dbl96 says above, a tree is a tree and regardless of individual views on the anthropogenic nature of climate change, temperatures are most certainly on an upward trajectory so from a mitigation perspective we need all of the mature trees we currently have, plus 500% more.

[Algernon]

Same problem solved in minutes all around the world:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TtzQtV ... EarthTitan

[Llessur2002]

Same problem solved in minutes all around the world:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TtzQtV ... EarthTitan

Didn't they use one of these to move a tree from Victoria Square to the southern parklands a few years ago?

[rhino]

When I last built a house (1995), one of the council stipulations was that there could not be a tree within the same distance of the house as the tree's height. This meant that if the tree fell over from its base, it would not destroy the house. Once I had moved in, I could plant what I liked, where I liked. Council covering its arse - it simply would not give approval for something that could come back and bite it. Keep in mind this was 1995 though.

[abc]

When I last built a house (1995), one of the council stipulations was that there could not be a tree within the same distance of the house as the tree's height. This meant that if the tree fell over from its base, it would not destroy the house. Once I had moved in, I could plant what I liked, where I liked. Council covering its arse - it simply would not give approval for something that could come back and bite it. Keep in mind this was 1995 though.

the rules for the little people are not the same as the rules for the big corporates

[rhino]

the rules for the little people are not the same as the rules for the big corporates

Very true!

[rev]

Are you a building contractor? I'm just curious because you insist that all building works can carry on as normal as if the trees weren't there..
I personally don't know, and having seen residential blocks that have had significantly sized gum trees for example left standing, I assume that a block is entirely cleared if it's necessary.

No I’m not. But logically I cannot see a practical reason why a lot of trees on construction sites need to be cut down. Often they are right up against the property boundary - they are outside the building footprint and there is no logical way they could possibly be impeding access during the construction process. Yet demolition contractors go out of their way to destroy these trees.

Based on my observations, it is very rare for any vegetation to be left on a demolished block. If it is, it has only been preserved because the they are required by law to preserve it, or if the demolition contractor has been specifically requested by the owner/developer to preserve trees.

There is certainly very little creative thinking about how existing trees could be integrated into the design of new buildings planned for a site. The general approach is to treat each block as a blank canvas.

I’m not just imagining this - it is well documented that urban tree cover in Adelaide has reduced substantially over the last decade. The main reason this is happening is because trees are cleared as part of the demolition process, and they are not replaced.

If a tree, or trees, can't be saved on a block that's to be redeveloped, where those trees stand, then there should be a requirement to replace those trees. Private property being private property, it should be a choice between replace the tree with XYZ on the property, and if that's not feasible because of the nature of the development for example, then cover the cost of council planting a tree on the footpath out front or somewhere nearby where there is no tree present.

[gnrc_louis]

Looks to be some sort of soil testing happening on site today.

[HiTouch]

Are you a building contractor? I'm just curious because you insist that all building works can carry on as normal as if the trees weren't there..
I personally don't know, and having seen residential blocks that have had significantly sized gum trees for example left standing, I assume that a block is entirely cleared if it's necessary.

No I’m not. But logically I cannot see a practical reason why a lot of trees on construction sites need to be cut down. Often they are right up against the property boundary - they are outside the building footprint and there is no logical way they could possibly be impeding access during the construction process. Yet demolition contractors go out of their way to destroy these trees.

Based on my observations, it is very rare for any vegetation to be left on a demolished block. If it is, it has only been preserved because the they are required by law to preserve it, or if the demolition contractor has been specifically requested by the owner/developer to preserve trees.

There is certainly very little creative thinking about how existing trees could be integrated into the design of new buildings planned for a site. The general approach is to treat each block as a blank canvas.

I’m not just imagining this - it is well documented that urban tree cover in Adelaide has reduced substantially over the last decade. The main reason this is happening is because trees are cleared as part of the demolition process, and they are not replaced.

If a tree, or trees, can't be saved on a block that's to be redeveloped, where those trees stand, then there should be a requirement to replace those trees. Private property being private property, it should be a choice between replace the tree with XYZ on the property, and if that's not feasible because of the nature of the development for example, then cover the cost of council planting a tree on the footpath out front or somewhere nearby where there is no tree present.

Genuinely wish tree replacement policies would work but generally they don't. A young or newly planted tree takes around 10 - 15 years in its place to have the cooling effect on the environment and often by then, they will want to renovate the outside part which often means cutting it down anyway. Especially with the way today's architecture becomes outdated so quickly. It's frustrating.

Rundle Mall is only now starting to experience the benefits of the elm trees that were planted 10 years ago