Bob La Trémouille Reports:
1. Harvard Square - Every Tree on Palmer Street, All but one on Church Street.
A. Palmer Street in Harvard Square - City Planner: Trees block light.
B. Church Street Trees - Need trees CLOSER to buildings for wheelchairs.
2. Vassar Street / Memorial Drive - Sixteen Trees Being Destroyed.
A. MIT's half of Vassar Street - in the way of our bike path / sidewalk.
B. Cambridge / City Arborist's half of Vassar Street - trees too big.
C. Cambridge / City Arborist's half of Vassar Street - other problems.
D. Memorial Drive plans.
E. Cherry Trees.
3. Summary.
Wednesday evening, February 7, 2007, I attended the public hearing on tree destruction in Harvard Square and behind the Hyatt Regency near Memorial Drive.
1. Harvard Square - Every Tree on Palmer Street, All but one on Church Street.
A. Palmer Street in Harvard Square - City Planner: Trees block light.
The City of Cambridge's Development Department defended the destruction of all trees on Palmer Street in Harvard Square on two grounds:
(1) The trees are in the way of their beautiful pavers (fancy bricks) that they are using to replace the cobble stones.
(2) Trees block light.
B. Church Street Trees - Need trees CLOSER to buildings for wheelchairs.
As near as I can gather, the Development Department and the City Arborist justified moving / destroying all but one tree on Church Street to make Church Street more compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Trouble is they are moving the trees closer to the existing buildings. How moving / replacing trees to get them closer to existing buildings increases the ADA's wish to make room for wheel chairs is beyond me.
But then I find the Development Departments explanation for Palmer Street flatly and simply sick.
2. Vassar Street / Memorial Drive - Sixteen Trees Being Destroyed.
Sixteen trees are being destroyed on Vassar Street. Eight are being destroyed at the demand of MIT, eight at the demand of the City Arborist.
A. MIT's half of Vassar Street - in the way of our bike path / sidewalk.
All sorts of lovely reasons were given for MIT's eight.
The reason MIT really pushed at the end was that the trees are in the way of MIT's lovely bike path.
Additionally, MIT is widening the sidewalk and does not want trees in the middle of their lovely new sidewalk.
B. Cambridge / City Arborist's half of Vassar Street - trees too big.
The City Arborist is the one fighting for the destruction of those eight magnificent trees behind the Hyatt Regency. These magnificent eight trees grew over the street and have massive root systems in place to support that growth. The city arborist is afraid they will fall over. And he is going to replace them with saplings.
But those trees have only been able to grow in one direction. The buildings are at the lot line. It is very obvious that, as the trees grew, their root system grew, and the root system, of necessity grew to hold up the trees. This argument is an argument against putting trees in districts where buildings are allowed to the lot line.
But then, the Development Department representative was very serious when she said she was destroying every tree on Palmer Street because trees block light (and are in the way of her lovely bricks, oh, I beg your pardon, pavers).
To my point of view, the city does not want to embarrass MIT. MIT is putting in a lot of saplings. Those massive trees would make MIT's saplings look small. So the massive trees "have to go."
Cambridge cannot have its eight mature street trees overwhelming MIT's baby street trees.
C. Cambridge / City Arborist's half of Vassar Street - other problems.
The arborist gave other, technical reasons for destruction.
The reality is that the city has a bad reputation with regard to saving street trees.
I hear these other, lovely reasons. They sound oh so technical and oh so impressive.
The trouble, among other things, is the timing. How is that the city has suddenly gotten so concerned about these matters at the same time as MIT is rebuilding Vassar Street?
I know of other excellent street trees in the way of "improvement" which were casually destroyed and suddenly disappeared and got out of the developer's way.
I am not at all comfortable with findings which, to put it as delicately as possible, certainly look self-serving on the part of the City of Cambridge.
They are excellent trees. Period.
D. Memorial Drive plans.
This portion of Vassar Street hits Memorial Drive across from a thick woods which is slated for destruction. To the west of the woods is the goose meadow of the Charles River White Geese. Sickos from the City of Cambridge and the state bureacracy have aggressively starved them and propose to destroy pretty much all those trees as well.
The eight massive trees are on the north side of the Hyatt Regency Hotel. The south side faces on the Charles River and Memorial Drive.
The plans are to destroy more than 449 to 660 trees from the Longfellow Bridge to Magazine Beach. Across from the Hyatt and going east to the split of Memorial Drive, off the top of my head approximately 85 out of 110 trees are being destroyed.
The state bureacrats and their buddies explain the destruction on the grounds that Memorial Drive will look great in 40 years.
A thick woods just before the Memorial Drive split is slated for destruction. The woods is in the way of their lovely bike path. The Memorial Drive split is a block or two east of the Hyatt.
E. Cherry Trees.
Vassar Street is slated to have a number of young cherry trees planted.
The state bureaucrats are destroying every cherry tree on Memorial Drive from the Longfellow Bridge to Magazine Beach because cherry trees are not the IN tree this week.
This is being done in collusion with MIT and the City of Cambridge. You will recall that a Cambridge planner justified destruction of all trees on Palmer Street in Harvard Square because trees block light.
3. Summary.
Business as usual in the environmentally reprehensible City of Cambridge.
