I wrote a couple of months ago about the unusual dilemma the city is facing, trying to save a heritage tree in the city — a 107-year-old tulip tree . They’re willing to give the landowner six extra floors of condo space for a proposed tower next to the tree and equally old house in order for him to preserve it, but the tree’s root ball sits 40 per cent on (under?) someone else’s land and that person won’t commit to a legal agreement.
The vote is coming up this Thursday. My Globe story (with more information than my original blog post) here.
7 responses so far ↓
1 G. deAuxerre // Jun 9, 2010 at 1:22 pm
The 12-storey tree is grossly oversized for the urban environment in which it sits. It sheds a tremendous amount of biomass annually, conflicts with underground servicing, shades solar energy from reaching homes and gardens, blocks views, etc. Many urban trees are unirrigated and suffer from drought given the many impermeable surfaces surrounding them. Large trees absorb a disproportionate amount of whatever groundwater is available, thus starving nearby trees.
Many large trees of that size are not of good structural health because of the built constraints that surround them. As they age, large branches (over a foot in diam, weighing hundreds of pounds), fall on vehicles, sheds, desks, houses, etc. The risk and liability associated with this are substantial.
A single tree of that size belongs in a park or other conservation area surrounded by other trees to lessen risk of blowdown. Places where its inappropriate to grow people.
It is clearly out of scale and only if there is room on the boulevard or lot – taking into account existing trees – there could be a replanting with a suitable species that reaches 2 to 4 storeys.
2 MB // Jun 9, 2010 at 1:33 pm
It would be sad to see this one go, unless it is a true hazard.
I agree that such large-growing trees belong in a park. Perhaps in this case a park can be brought to the tree.
Anyone on the Park Board reading this?
3 David // Jun 9, 2010 at 2:36 pm
To GdA, On your comment: ” The 12-storey tree is grossly oversized for the urban environment”. We don’t live in lego-land. Big trees have always lived on the peninsula and they are always a joy to find. They are part of this hoods culture. I doubt you meant to sound like Sarah Palin. Or did you?
4 Dave // Jun 9, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Hi GdA
perhaps we can do away with all trees, they block the view, they shed biomass, they can be like way sticky, they leave droppings all voer cars, they can like take up space best used by massive towers.
lets just have nice BIG concrete towers with wonderful asphalt all around, that way the radiant energy will keep everyone warm..
after all why would anyone want something green to get in the way of development.
See Westwood Plateau, Mary Hill Citadel Heights in Coquitlam for reference.. ahh such a lovely view of clearcuts and house upon house upon house with no character or foliage..
Such a neighbourhood exists!
oy vey where do I buy????
5 grumbelschmoll // Jun 9, 2010 at 6:43 pm
The staff report erroneously states that there are no financial implications, while also stating that preservation of the tree would be bought with six floors of additional density in addition to six floors of additional density given for preservation of the house. Twelve floors in additional density do have a value, there is a financial implication. Think of the community amenities that could be created with that kind of money (the Vancouver Sun thinks we are talking about $15 Million but the report gives no dollar figure). The financial implication is that we are foregoing community amenities with these heritage deals. Heritage comes with a hefty price tag.
We have created an absurd system of rules according to which placing an eighteen story tower next to this old house is acceptable in the quest of heritage preservation. The very heritage we wish to preserve is destroyed by turning the house into a historical quote dwarfed by the tower next to it. How silly.
What happened to the idea that new development should be respectful of old development, that it should integrate into the neighbourhood, that it should be neighbourly?
6 Frances Bula // Jun 9, 2010 at 7:46 pm
@grumbelschmoll. I have to say that, although I think the tree comes at a price, it is not the wildly inaccurate $15 million that the Sun guessed at. That $15 million was the calculation of the (assumed) square footage of six floors, calculated at $850 a square foot, as though the developer were walking away with $850 clear from the selling price. Developers in this town typically aim for 15 per cent profit after the cost of land and construction. But let’s say this one is aiming for 20 per cent, to be conservative. If those six floors of condos sold for $15 million, the developer’s profit on them would be $3 million. Bing Thom and Michael Heeney have said that the profit would be not quite enough to pay for the extra costs involved in building the underground parking to go around the root ball of the tree. Given what I have heard about the cost of parking in this town — developers routinely list eliminating parking requirements as among the top five things a city could do to make housing more affordable — $3 million doesn’t seem like an unbelievable sum to have to reconfigure the parking and possibly go deeper. I know some kitchen renovations that are that much. (Just kidding — sort of.)
I don’t actually think the landowner would make a killing on this. But there is a price to be paid by people in the neighbourhood. They will get a lovely tree, if they want it. And they will also get an 18-storey condo tower, which they may not want. I don’t see that this would take away from community amenities at all. If the tree weren’t there, the landowner would never be given extra density so there wouldn’t be any benefit to anyone else available.
7 scm // Jun 9, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Why not transfer the density to another site and preserve the house, yard and tree as was the wish of the previous owner! Building 12+6 storey tower seems rather unsympathetic.