Tuesday, 10 March 2015

Bonus quote of the morning: On a Titirangi kauri tree

“Lots of people want this 500 year old Kauri tree protected. Should
be easy to put some funds together so they can buy the tree.”

- Stephen Berry

6 comments:

  1. True...but why can't developers and architects (present company excepted) see the value in incorporating trees in their subdivisions etc. They seem to just flatten everything and it is far too homogenised. It is happening by me as we speak.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Shows the mentality of these people when they, without any hint of guilt, describe it as "our Kauri tree". The left seems to have a policy of "if I can see it, it's mine", which is understandable when you're two, but indefensible as an adult.

    I agree it's a shame to cut down a 500 year old tree to build some manky house, but Berry is right - they should put their money where their overused mouths are.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Ruth: I don't get that bit either. I haven't seen a design for this specific project, but generally why the hell wouldn't you want to design them in instead of bland everything out?

    I might do a post on that tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have friends who build a big deck around a kauri tree. The crap that continuously dropped from the tree made the deck unusable for even a quick meal. Kauri trees belong in a forest. Not great in a garden near a house.

      Delete
    2. I have friends who build a big deck around a kauri tree. The crap that continuously dropped from the tree made the deck unusable for even a quick meal. Kauri trees belong in a forest. Not great in a garden near a house.

      Delete
  4. @ Ruth & PC: Because it's very difficult and at times impossible to design a modern subdivision that leaves a lot of the existing trees in. A large developer client of mine was very conscious about wanting to preserve as many mature trees as possible, but it really had to be limited to where reserves were set aside. Everything has to work for stormwater drainage, and that usually requires earthworks over most of the areas that change the existing ground level, and you can't keep trees unless the existing ground level remains the same. Where it's possible without extensive earthworks (eg: the subdivision I live in) keeping the trees invariably lowers the yield (no. of lots) you can get from the land, and therefore drives up cost. The other factor is that even where developers want to keep trees and/or provide landscape amenity, the Council is often against it because they don't want to maintain it when it gets vested to them.

    ReplyDelete

1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.