The Pier Park Sequoia Tree (Portland, Green: apartment, crime, houses)

[pdxMIKEpdx]

I don't know what to think about this.
http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-29801-city_deploys_mediator_to_pier_park_to_end_seia_sta .html

Now they are "deploying a mediator".
Part of me wants to laugh at the war between Portland Greenies and the City of Portland.
The other part of me cries when I realize that the obvious answer is to go around the tree.

The pro tree people are crying that it is a crime to cut down a tree that is 18 feet in circumfrence.
That sounds huge, but that's less than 6 feet in diameter.
A 6 foot diameter tree is nothing special in the PNW.
It's not a historic tree or anything, just another tree in another park.
It's not the last tree in Portland for heavens sake.
The CoP will replace it and plant more trees, and plan to use the wood from the cut tree for a playground structure.

What's your opinion?
I say find another route. Even if it means the cyclists have to slow down to negotiate a curve or two.

[Minervah]

I saw that on TV. I would like them to keep the tree. I don't see why they cannot just go around the tree. After all, it's 100 years old, it deserves some respect. They just destroyed a beautiful little green space on the corner near my place to build an ugly sardine can apartment building.

And we call ourselves a "green city." It may not be the last tree in Portland but where does it end? I am afraid little by little we may be losing our trees. One here, one there. Isn't that where it begins?

[EnricoV]

Originally Posted by Minervah

They just destroyed a beautiful little green space on the corner near my place to build an ugly sardine can apartment building.

Did "they" destroy it, or did the property owner? Who is under no obligation to provide a green space for the neighborhood.

As for the tree, it's just one of many in the immediate area. There's nothing particularly special about that one. I understand they plan to replace it with three trees, better placed.

Go ahead and do it.

[Minervah]

Originally Posted by EnricoV

Did "they" destroy it, or did the property owner? Who is under no obligation to provide a green space for the neighborhood.

As for the tree, it's just one of many in the immediate area. There's nothing particularly special about that one. I understand they plan to replace it with three trees, better placed.

Go ahead and do it.

Yeah, you are right, it was the property owner. The they in this situation is the city turning a blind eye to the furture possible damage this may l do to property in the rest of the neighborhood but I am not going to go into this. City surveyors are well aware of potential problems.

As for me I just hate to see old trees destroy. Even one of many.

Mike did ask opinions, and that is mine.

[EnricoV]

People get so comfortable with empty lots ... I get the feeling of loss.

I remember when Cartopia first opened down on Hawthorne. The coffee shop adjoining it was so used to having that lot to park (for free) that the seemed to do whatever they could to fight the change of usage. Even (and I'm not saying they were the ones responsible) going so far as vandalizing things.

I get the wanting the trees to stay, I'm as "green" as the next guy. But I guess I do have a practical side. When I first read the story, it sounded sacrilegious to cut cut down. Then I saw the video, and saw how many other trees were around it, just as big ... and seems like a lot of fuss, when what they're doing is something to improve people's access to getting out in the "green" spaces.

[Minervah]

Originally Posted by Enrico

People get so comfortable with empty lots ... I get the feeling of loss.

I remember when Cartopia first opened down on Hawthorne. The coffee shop adjoining it was so used to having that lot to park (for free) that the seemed to do whatever they could to fight the change of usage. Even (and I'm not saying they were the ones responsible) going so far as vandalizing things.

I get the wanting the trees to stay, I'm as "green" as the next guy. But I guess I do have a practical side. When I first read the story, it sounded sacrilegious to cut cut down. Then I saw the video, and saw how many other trees were around it, just as big ... and seems like a lot of fuss, when what they're doing is something to improve people's access to getting out in the "green" spaces.

The little spot to which I was referring on Hawthorne wasn't empty though. It was the one with the two old houses and and old dogwood and some very large azalea bushes and a lilac bush and a couple of others. It was a grassy space. It was on a slope that helped keep the heavy rains from flooding the streets down below I live.

Anyhoo, I don't have a problem either with Cartopia and parking. Especially because I don't have a car. And have you noticed the space in front of where the "Periodical Paradise" used to be? Food carts abound. I don't object to the apartment building on 30th and Hawthorne going up where those eyesores of abandoned restaurants kept going up and then failed either. Although I understand about the parking woes people are complaing about there.

I am not totally against tree removal or new structures. I just feel bad when very old trees have to go.

[Deezus]

There's a lot of trees in Pier Park... It's basically a forest for most of it's area. It's not as if this is some lone tree standing in some field to be chopped down or a clear-cut... If you look at the area on the other side of the railroad tracks from Chimney Park--you basically have to cut down a tree or two somewhere to build the trail to link the two parks.

[SETabor]

I heard on the radio that if they reroute to go around that one tree, they will have to cut down multiple other trees. I would have to check on that fact and then debate whether one larger tree is worth several smaller trees.