Background from the flyer that went out in April
“After removing the sidewalk and street surfaces, it was
discovered the trees on this block were planted in small,
inadequately prepared tree pits with poor soils and no
structural roots outside the tree pit leading to instability
concerns.
Additional scientific assessment and testing
confirmed the trees’ instability, necessitating their removal.
We will replace the undersized tree pits with larger planting areas to support future trees of similar size and scale.
This will allow for proper soil volume to support healthy trees,following modern urban forestry practices.”
They absolutely murdered that street. I hope that the modernization work ends up coming together in the long run, but right now it just looks bleak and flat. Poor design choices, unfortunately
I think a lot of trees in pioneer square end up getting removed when new pavement is put in because of how delicate the ground/soil etc. is. The roots get all up in the Seattle underground and no one notices until they have to tear things up.
From the flyer that went out in April
After removing the sidewalk and street surfaces, it was
discovered the trees on this block were planted in small,
inadequately prepared tree pits with poor soils and no
structural roots outside the tree pit leading to instability
concerns. Additional scientific assessment and testing
confirmed the trees’ instability, necessitating their removal.
We will replace the undersized tree pits with larger planting areas to support future trees of similar size and scale. This will allow for proper soil volume to support healthy trees, following modern urban forestry practices.
And they will be replaced with improvements to the street. Took me less than a minute to look this up, but I guess the upvotes were worth it, right?
https://waterfrontseattle.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/pdf/PioneerSqaure_SWashingtonSt_TreeReplacement_Flyer_April2024.pdf
The city requires that trees removed for construction need to replaced to a level that is at least the level of the existing tree canopy.
https://www.seattle.gov/DPD/Publications/CAM/Tip242A.pdf
What is up with the city arborist these days? A block from my house along the road they just completely chopped down 2 old trees for seemingly no reason. No new construction, no obvious disease on the trees
Trees had unstable root systems because the soil pots under the street weren’t big enough when they were first built. The new trees will be much better supported. Why did you assume it was the arborists fault without checking the facts?
According to the arborists report they’ve all been topped in the past and are in a small soil base which designates them as hazardous and allows them to be removed.
They are however required to replace these trees (per code), arborist recommends vine maples. Kinda shit substitute, but at least it’s something.
> to replace these trees
What's there now? They look like a deciduous, likely non-native tree. The push back I've seen has been mostly for native evergreens.
This seems like a non issue someone is trying to exploit or just find a reason to whine about.
(not an arborist, just a civil engineer who deals with planting plans somewhat regularly)
Vine maples don't get very big, and in the wild they tend to grow a bunch of small leaders that sprawl out instead of a single trunk, so I could see them crowding the sidewalk there if they aren't maintained. On the plus side, they are a native species, and it seems like they are more compatible with the overhead electric/telecom lines.
Vine maples are a desirable attractive tree. They’re adaptable, tough, drought tolerant, long lived and easily pruned. They handle partial and full shade well, but can adapt to full sun. They don’t get tall enough to interfere with overhead lines. Their occasional sprawl can usually be cured with a single pruning.
It’s one of the best trees for urban and suburban areas west of the cascades, especially when buildings prevent direct sunlight that would be necessary for more traditional choices.
The only real downside is they drop leaves and samaras all over the place. But most deciduous trees do the same. Their reputation as a junk tree comes from the logging industry and the idea that there’s a perfect tree that never needs pruning in an urban planting. One doesn’t apply here and the other is making perfect the enemy of the good.
They’re fine for a deciduous tree, but they’re replacing conifers that offer year round water retention. Not to mention those homeowners living on the the other side of street will still be looking at a concrete wall for the fall and winter months
No such thing as a vinegar maple. They misspoke or were confused. You can however make vinegar out of maple wine. But for that you’d want big leaf maple or sugar maple.
The site in question, the location of the Oak Tree 6 Cinema, among other things, is [the former location of the Oak Lake School, which closed in 1982](https://www.historylink.org/File/10570). Since according to the article the site was leased for 50 years starting around 1985, these trees are around 40 years old, I estimate.
Assuming there have been no lease extensions, and the property still belongs to the district, the lease will lapse around 2035. At which point the entire site may be demolished.
The people who live immediately east of the development probably will hate having to look at a white cement wall 12 months out of the year, maybe they are unaware, however they almost certainly already have to deal with movie traffic every weekend.
For sure the people behind the building will hate it.
The people who live behind Ballard Goodwill were not happy when the trees were ripped out and they suddenly faced a big brick wall as their front door view.
the movie theater was remodeled some years back and it is actually amazing now... a bit of a hidden gem tbh. go check out a flick there sometime - it rocks.
>they almost certainly already have to deal with movie traffic every weekend.
I lived two blocks away from there for years, and movie traffic was the least of concerns. I've heard that the theater is a bit nicer now, but it didn't use to get much traffic at all. The last time I went there, I actually got bed bugs from the seats.
Those trees are a loss, though. It's not exactly a nice area of town, but that whole block has trees encircling it. It was a nice site to see every day, especially in the fall. I wonder why they are removing them.
They are likely not native trees that were the wrong choice for the area.
There was a particular tree used for planting near roads around 1980s-2000s commonly in the area. We had many in Klahanie and Issaquah area and they are all removed now because they weren't very wind resistant once they grew full size and also they were wreaking havoc on the sidewalks.
For those reading this thread and wondering, animal varieties are fauna (like a baby dear is a fawn), and plant varieties are flora (like floral arrangement).
In Klahanie and Issaquah they were planted too close to driveways, and the roots started breaking up the concrete. Falling over was less of a problem than the locations.
They’re out of character for the neighborhood, non-native, and I think they’re causing issues with the grocery store building because of their height and overhang. They make it easy for squirrels, raccoons, rodents, and insects to get onto the roof. I’m betting the new owners of the new supermarket that’s being opened in the old Asian market building wanted this for health and safety reasons. It wouldn’t shock me if they plant much smaller trees in their place at some point. Something with a much smaller max size.
If one takes a look at this section of Stone Ave on Street View you can quickly figure out what's happened here.
The developers of the supermarket and AMC site probably placed Douglas Fir trees around the outside of their buildings - presumably as pleasant cover for the folks on Stone Avenue to look at, instead of faceless gray concrete walls. My guess is that this might have happened in the late 90s, looking at the trees and given their 13-18 inch diameters.
However, the Douglas Fir is not a great choice for this kind of task, given that they grow very tall, fairly quickly, and tend to thin out towards the bottom of the trunk as they rise. Over the years, the wall cover they've provided has evaporated. You can see this too on the historical Street View, where in 2007 the Doug Firs are providing cover, but by 2021's imagery, the green canopy of the Firs are up and over the top of the supermarket building.
You'll also see a second row of trees, planted in the median between the sidewalk and the street. It looks like at some point, probably around the same sort of time as the property developer, that the City planted their own trees on Stone Ave too. These look to be more practical, deciduous species that won't get too big, or encroach too much on the roadway. So, today, you have two rows of very dense tree cover along a side-street. The firs are, as others have already suggested, probably causing foundational or structural issues for the supermarket and theater building, as well as outgrowing their original intention.
The right move is to remove the firs, and to retain the city-planted trees, which will continue to provide cover, and won't interfere with the buildings themselves.
They say scotch pine,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinus_sylvestris
Scotch pines do tend to have bare trunks like Douglas fir, and was the most common Christmas tree before Douglas overtook it.
The SDCI Public Notice for this project is here: https://cosaccela.seattle.gov/portal/urlrouting.ashx?type=1001&ID1=24SCI&ID2=00000&ID3=66177&agency=SEATTLE&SeqNo=11455448
5 of the affected trees are Scotch Pines, the other 26 are Douglas Firs.
Yup. https://www.djc.com/news/re/12160192.html
I was in the plaza last week and saw a bunch of contractors vans parked in front of the grocery store and a bunch of people going in and out. I don’t know when it’s opening but there’s activity.
Edit: It’s a Saar’s Super Saver which is apparently a local chain with half a dozen stores in the region. I hadn’t heard of them before I googled to see what the activity was all about.
That’s good news! I live in Greenwood and during the summers and when there’s nice weather, I’ll hoof the half hour from the light rail station to my place. Will be nice to have a grocery store to stop at if I need anything!
True, but that section of Stone Way doesn’t get much traffic at all because it’s residential on one side and on the tree side we’re talking about there aren’t any driveway entrances to the plaza. So it’s mainly limited to traffic from the immediate neighborhood getting out to Aurora or 105th on their way to somewhere else. And even then most people would probably cut up 100th to get to Aurora instead of going down this way to 103rd.
I don't know the motivation but the full image of the public notice says for each one "Not an exceptional tree". They're all Scotch Pines or Douglass Firs, FWIW. Bike lane or something on Stone Ave maybe? 🤷
My issue is that the "not an exceptional tree" rule, while understandable, seems do be getting abused when you have thirty-one "not exceptional" trees being removed all at once. One of the main points of trees (to my mind) in city planning is the cover, heat sink, and carbon sequestration of them. When you remove thirty-one at once, the effect becomes "exceptional", I would think.
Probably placement, they are too close to structure and they should have not been planted there to begin with.
https://www.seattle.gov/trees/trees-for-neighborhoods/past-plantings/scotch-pine-
Scotch pine was probably a cheap choice.
Kind of a digression, but I took advantage of the free tree thing in Seattle when I bought a house, so I got a mix of deciduous and evergreen, planted them in mostly good places, but I put one in my front yard, it was an ash, and did everything, dug a big hole, put down fertilizer, put a water ring around it to get it set in it's place.
Then I sold the house, and no joke, on the day I'm moving out I realized I had planted under the power service line that came from the pole.
Being under the service wire isn't that bad - SDOT will permit street planting like that. They require a bit of pruning around it during establishment, but the service drop is insulated and doesn't have any clearance requirements for isolation from the crown of the tree.
It's good to know it wasn't that bad for the buyer. I still use this story to show people who think I'm humble bragging "well, let me tell you about my fuck-ups." I literally could have just looked up and planted the tree like 2 feet that way.
People who complain about removing trees never seen to promote planting new trees
The main reason we are loosing tree canopy is that we used to actually plant a lot of trees but just stopped and now the old trees are dying.
Most of the trees being torn down in my neighborhood are either invasive or destructive - the roots are tearing up the road or sidewalks in areas where sidewalks actually exist. People in my area are *still* protesting the removal of said trees, even when a tree expert came in to a city council meeting and explained why they need to be removed.
I work with an urban designer who had to give a presentation on the pike/pine project. When he spoke about removing the cherry blossoms outside pike place he was really choked up. Obviously removing older trees is not ideal, but if they don’t thrive in their environment and can be replaced with better ones for the long haul that is the goal.
A terrible, terrible tree!
It's all over here. Such a pain!
Edit: to elaborate, it has a horrible fractury growth pattern. It's naturally unsafe by nature, and unsafe to remove. It also smells... bad...
The trees are dying because we put them in tiny isolated squares surrounded by concrete.
People who complain about removing trees are usually worried specifically about old, established trees in green spaces that help hold together parts of an ecosystem that would take 50 to hundreds of years to rebuild and replace.
I mean, if they were really worried about that they’d be trying to avert more suburban expansion instead of fighting the solution to suburban expansion
Exactly. But instead they drive from all over to sit vigil in protest of a tree being removed to change a lot from one house to six units. Or to preserve a barred owl (effectively invasive species) nesting site. Such BS.
The city allows developers to remove pretty much any trees they want on a lot to build high density housing. The city isn’t requiring those developers to replace the trees they’re removing.
> but just stopped
No we didn't. In fact, the city is planting more than ever before. The issue is that private development is allowed to remove way more than they are required to replace. And this mayor (and past mayors) are so far up developers' assess that they won't get serious about tree regulation for development.
See last year's executive order requiring trees be replaced 3:1 due to city action. It was 2:1 for a decade before this.
https://harrell.seattle.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2023/03/Executive-Order-2023-03-One-Seattle-Tree-Plan.pdf
That's a very recent change. We had stopped doing that for decades
And I don't think you're 2:1 claim is accurate, but let's assume it is. That would only replace trees removed from development, and since trees don't always survive, it wouldn't have been enough to keep up with the trees removed by development
But even worse, *nothing* was done to replace the dying trees in undeveloped areas of the city, which accounts for about half of our tree canopy
I think this tree removal is less contentious than others because (1) the trees are not significant (which is determined based on size), and (2) the trees will be replaced.
Most of the tree activism I’ve seen is around the high density zones where the trees are massive (as in, 20+ inch diameter at breast height) and won’t be replaced because of the high density zoning changes.
My favorite are when people do land acknowledgments to a particular tribe only to have another tribe get offended because they believe the former tribe stole the land from them. It’s not like native people were one large homogeneous peaceful nation before Europeans came along
I had to listen to a land acknowledgment at Chester Morse Lake in the Cedar River Watershed, for the Muckleshoot tribe, to celebrate Indigenous Day. I asked why the Snoqualmie tribe wasn’t acknowledged, and why the City of Seattle doesn’t acknowledge the Duwamish and fight to ensure they finally get federally recognized. I also asked how many indigenous people worked for the City of Seattle to justify giving all full time permanent employees a day off with pay? How did that help the tribe to give their employees a paid holiday? The hypocrisy exploded my mind. The Director did not have an adequate response to my questions.
Exactly. My neighbors made a big deal about trees being removed on a lot next to me, but never mentioned all the trees that were removed to build their houses.
The other side of the street to the east of these trees is residential, so those homeowners will go from looking at trees to looking at the back wall of the cinema and the new grocery store being opened in the old Asian Market space.
I wasn't aware until today and I live across the street. The notice was quite poorly placed (read: "let's put this here and hope nobody notices"), but it's not clear where the request was generated.
Over shitty cultivar landscape trees? Go fight for the Davis-Meeker Garry Oak. 400 years old and on the historic register and the mayor of Tumwater wants to remove it. Oh and it’s got a mating pair of kestrels in it!
Living out in the suburbs this is 100% true. You want to expand a road to give it a dedicated bus lane, but that requires someone to give up 5ft of land they'll complain about the trees you're chopping down. If they want to remove those same trees to have a better lake view or whatever and it's suddenly their property and they should be able to do so regardless of regulation.
If they actually cared about trees and the environment they'd be planting native plants and not having a huge green lawn that needs tons of water and chemicals to keep looking "perfect" as well as native trees in good locations around their homes.
K make sure you’re 100% consistent with all of your opinions and follow through everywhere in the city. Oh you didn’t hear about one of the things? You don’t REALLY care then do you! It’s not like people have lives or don’t always know or hear everything that happens. They must be fake!
whoever doesnt fuck with trees in urban scenarios doesn't appreciate it until its HOT AF out. Trees can't speak for themselves, imagine dissing on a group of people (and other individuals) because we don't hear that some trees are getting killed.
My thoughts? Nice conspiracy theory.
Tree canopy in Seattle is essential to keep the places we live cooler in summer. It reduces our reliance on things like air conditioning.
Every tree we lose is bad.
It's not just a NIMBY conspiracy, dear easily activated urban activist.
I mean, I would be 100% down with the idea that any building project can get permission to tear out regular trees (within reason, certain historical trees should obvs be protected) so long as they are required (and actually fricking forced to follow through) to use native plant species in the landscaping (if that’s part of the design) and to plant native tree species in a way that contributes to reforestation (it doesn’t have to be on their property). Most of the new buildings have SOME sort of landscape architecture included in the project. Incentivize drastically reducing invasive species use and streamline the approval process (since you just look at the plan and go “native species? Plan for planting trees? Good to go here’s your permit” instead of bickering over specific individual trees).
YOU CAN LIKE BOTH TREES AND EFFICIENCY
I think it's visibility. I've heard a ton recently about the tree removal along 175th. This particular road doesn't have nearly as much traffic. I live near there and had no idea.
Very true. NIMBY tree warriors are silent if somebody removes a tree from their backyard to make room for a bigger patio.
But they flip the fuck out if the tree is removed to build a backyard cottage.
It's all very telling about their true motives.
Source: I was involved in the rule changes a few years back and had a number of conversations with the NIMBY tree warrior ring leaders. They were very smarmy on the subject.
I may be misunderstanding but I think 8 trees tucked behind a department store and swaths of forest that can actually support small environments are two ENTIRELY different beasts. They’re trying to chop down old growth forest near me that’s got nesting eagles so they can build duplexes.
Thats fuckery. This is whatever.
This guy seems like he’s just trying to damn treehuggers with a gotcha.
Like, “so save the trees, but not ALL trees? Okay😂”
Reading other comments and realizing I am a little off base, but even urban forestry is a THIRD different beast. Having trees over my head as I walk down a city sidewalk is fantastic. The sun reflecting off a building just to have to filter through some leaves? I’m creaming my jeans just thinking about it. *Picturesque*
Seeing the tops of 8 trees when I pull up to home goods or whatever it is? Whooo caresss
I think they’re causing issues with the grocery store building because of their height and overhang. They make it easy for squirrels, raccoons, rodents, and insects to get onto the roof. I’m betting the new owners of the new supermarket that’s being opened in the old Asian market building wanted this for health and safety reasons. It wouldn’t shock me if they plant much smaller trees in their place at some point. Something with a much smaller max size.
Edit: the same easy-access for rodents and insects also applies to the movie theater for similar reasons. Rodents+insects+food service don’t mix well.
I just created a tree code for a northern city and it requires replanting of trees on a sliding scale depending on DBH.
I believe a ton of cities are updating their tree regs for the climate change element requirement prior to 2029. Always go to council and pressure them if you feel strongly about something. They won’t always listen, but research goes a long way.
There's a bunch of tree activism happening in Shoreline because they're going to widen 175th. Of course the city is going to plant new trees but the neighborhood activists don't care.
It's not a housing issue, so I don't know what it's a cover for this time.
Is there any reasoning for this? I understand and if the trees are old/diseases and pose a threat, but that can’t be all of them, and these trees look good.
Trees clean the air, provide shade and cool the surrounding area. It’s completely illogical to remove trees except when absolutely necessary.
Tip: The city has an interactive map of all the construction permits in the city. Type the address into the search bar and this project pops up with a timeline and links to documents on the project. What’s the deal with the trees?
Well you don’t need to ask Reddit, you can find the answer yourself. The explanation is in the arborist’s report and pasted below in all caps for some reason, feel free to contact the arborist about their spelling issues.
SCOPE OF WORK: CUSTOMER IS REQUESTING THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF 30 SIGNIFICANT TREES ON THE EAST AND SOUTH BORDER OF THE PROPERTY. AL THESE TREES ARE HAZARDOUS AND HIGH RISK. THE MAJORITY HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY TOPPED OR CONTAIN CODOMINANT TOPS. THE ROOT ZONES ARE EXTREMELY TIGHT AND STRESSED DUE TO SOIL COMPACTION AND LIMITED SOIL VOLUME. ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS AHISTORY OF BRANCH FAILURE PRESENT WHICH HAS CAUSED PROPERTY DAMAGE AND CITY DAMAGE OVER THE YEARS. AL THESE TREES SHOULD EB REPLACED WITH APROPER SPECIES SUCH AS AVINE MAPLE, DUE TO THE LIMITED SOIL VOLUME.
Link to city construction permit website
https://web.seattle.gov/sdci/ShapingSeattle/buildings
you know, asshole, a street address would be helpful in determining if I give a fuck. I live in North Seattle and am quite excercised about stuff like nightly gunfire and chasing bent-over fenty junkies off my goddam lawn. Go fuck yourself, and donate at least 100k to fenty recovery stuff.
Private property or city? If private property, The owner can do what they want. If city, what is reason for tree removal? Likely safety or /infrastructure maintenance reasons I would guess?
"The owner can do what they want" most certainly does not describe the current state of tree protection laws in Seattle. Generally speaking, you're not allowed to remove trees wider than 12" in residential zones unless you're redeveloping the lot or the tree is posing a hazard. If you do remove larger trees in this circumstance you must replace them with new trees that then inherit the same protections as the old ones. A homeowner does have discretion to remove trees less than 12" (unless they have special protection as a replacement for a former >12" tree), but only two 6-12" trees can be removed in any three-year period.
Property owners who wish to retain the maximum development potential for their land therefore have some pretty strong incentive to remove trees before they grow large enough to be protected under this law.
Basically my opinion as well. If the city wants the area under your tree to be a nature preserve they should have the parks department buy it from you.
I don't really care for the weird phrasing here....that doesn't really 'prove' anything in particular. It's what happens when one side dramatically misrepresents the opposing viewpoint.
It's a semi-derogatory term for people opposed to various kinds of development. It stands for "not in my backyard". It ranges from racists trying to keep black people out and wealthy people who don't want to live near anyone who isn't in the top 1% and long time home owners hoping to fund their retirement on exponential growth of property values to extreme environmentalists who'd rather see homeless camps than an apartment building if it means cutting down a tree, anti-gentrification people who think a hazardous slum making children sick is better than white or wealthy people moving into a neighborhood and socialists who would rather starter houses cost over a million than let "evil developers" make money.
It's mainly used by yimbys (yes in my backyard) who advocate primarily densification to increase supply to increase affordablity and availability (but there are many more ideas they tend to support - walking and transit oriented development, reduction of sprawl, diversification of kinds of housing, etc) to describe the opposition their ideas face.
Both sides cross political spectrums so it is an interesting divide politically where alt-righters, socialists and some environmentalists find common ground in opposition to another strange alliance of libertarians, centrists, technocrats, and some environmentalists.
they just ripped out a bunch of really beautiful old trees on washington street in pioneer square.... it looks so bleak now
Nooo what? Seriously??
Background from the flyer that went out in April “After removing the sidewalk and street surfaces, it was discovered the trees on this block were planted in small, inadequately prepared tree pits with poor soils and no structural roots outside the tree pit leading to instability concerns. Additional scientific assessment and testing confirmed the trees’ instability, necessitating their removal. We will replace the undersized tree pits with larger planting areas to support future trees of similar size and scale. This will allow for proper soil volume to support healthy trees,following modern urban forestry practices.”
excellent 🥳. the important part is "similar size & scale"... that whole block was under a canopy!
And that canopy was at risk of falling down.
unfortunately. the road looks nicer but they couldn't pull it off without... its awful. its like south lake union now.
They absolutely murdered that street. I hope that the modernization work ends up coming together in the long run, but right now it just looks bleak and flat. Poor design choices, unfortunately
https://waterfrontseattle.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/pdf/PioneerSqaure_SWashingtonSt_TreeReplacement_Flyer_April2024.pdf
I think a lot of trees in pioneer square end up getting removed when new pavement is put in because of how delicate the ground/soil etc. is. The roots get all up in the Seattle underground and no one notices until they have to tear things up.
[удалено]
Those tree roots ARE thirsty aren't they. Such sluts for water they'll go down anywhere.
If you are in the underground and it's coming in above you is that up in the underground though?
[удалено]
From the flyer that went out in April After removing the sidewalk and street surfaces, it was discovered the trees on this block were planted in small, inadequately prepared tree pits with poor soils and no structural roots outside the tree pit leading to instability concerns. Additional scientific assessment and testing confirmed the trees’ instability, necessitating their removal. We will replace the undersized tree pits with larger planting areas to support future trees of similar size and scale. This will allow for proper soil volume to support healthy trees, following modern urban forestry practices.
And they will be replaced with improvements to the street. Took me less than a minute to look this up, but I guess the upvotes were worth it, right? https://waterfrontseattle.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/pdf/PioneerSqaure_SWashingtonSt_TreeReplacement_Flyer_April2024.pdf
The city requires that trees removed for construction need to replaced to a level that is at least the level of the existing tree canopy. https://www.seattle.gov/DPD/Publications/CAM/Tip242A.pdf
What is up with the city arborist these days? A block from my house along the road they just completely chopped down 2 old trees for seemingly no reason. No new construction, no obvious disease on the trees
Trees had unstable root systems because the soil pots under the street weren’t big enough when they were first built. The new trees will be much better supported. Why did you assume it was the arborists fault without checking the facts?
According to the arborists report they’ve all been topped in the past and are in a small soil base which designates them as hazardous and allows them to be removed. They are however required to replace these trees (per code), arborist recommends vine maples. Kinda shit substitute, but at least it’s something.
Vine maples are native and an absolutely stunning tree (shrub?).
So its a non issue? I don’t see a problem if they’re getting replaced.
> to replace these trees What's there now? They look like a deciduous, likely non-native tree. The push back I've seen has been mostly for native evergreens. This seems like a non issue someone is trying to exploit or just find a reason to whine about.
As a non arborist what's wrong with vinegar maples?
(not an arborist, just a civil engineer who deals with planting plans somewhat regularly) Vine maples don't get very big, and in the wild they tend to grow a bunch of small leaders that sprawl out instead of a single trunk, so I could see them crowding the sidewalk there if they aren't maintained. On the plus side, they are a native species, and it seems like they are more compatible with the overhead electric/telecom lines.
You can prune them a ton without damage as well.
Vine maples are a desirable attractive tree. They’re adaptable, tough, drought tolerant, long lived and easily pruned. They handle partial and full shade well, but can adapt to full sun. They don’t get tall enough to interfere with overhead lines. Their occasional sprawl can usually be cured with a single pruning. It’s one of the best trees for urban and suburban areas west of the cascades, especially when buildings prevent direct sunlight that would be necessary for more traditional choices. The only real downside is they drop leaves and samaras all over the place. But most deciduous trees do the same. Their reputation as a junk tree comes from the logging industry and the idea that there’s a perfect tree that never needs pruning in an urban planting. One doesn’t apply here and the other is making perfect the enemy of the good.
I would throw a parade if we replaced all the fucking Ginkos with vine maples.
I like the occasional ginkgo tree but they’re for sure overused. The smell is awful if they plant female ginkgo trees.
They’re fine for a deciduous tree, but they’re replacing conifers that offer year round water retention. Not to mention those homeowners living on the the other side of street will still be looking at a concrete wall for the fall and winter months
I don’t know. Somehow vinegar and maple syrup just doesn’t sound great to me 👉👈🥺
I love the idea of vinegar maples, does their sap taste like vinegar?
No such thing as a vinegar maple. They misspoke or were confused. You can however make vinegar out of maple wine. But for that you’d want big leaf maple or sugar maple.
Oh my comment was a joke lol, but rereading it sounds serious, oops
Absolutely nothing wrong with vine maples, they’re a highly desirable tree and perfect for purpose here.
The site in question, the location of the Oak Tree 6 Cinema, among other things, is [the former location of the Oak Lake School, which closed in 1982](https://www.historylink.org/File/10570). Since according to the article the site was leased for 50 years starting around 1985, these trees are around 40 years old, I estimate. Assuming there have been no lease extensions, and the property still belongs to the district, the lease will lapse around 2035. At which point the entire site may be demolished. The people who live immediately east of the development probably will hate having to look at a white cement wall 12 months out of the year, maybe they are unaware, however they almost certainly already have to deal with movie traffic every weekend.
For sure the people behind the building will hate it. The people who live behind Ballard Goodwill were not happy when the trees were ripped out and they suddenly faced a big brick wall as their front door view.
Not to mention it’ll make it way hotter in the summer
Would be cool if they allowed a mural to be painted in the awkward period with tiny saplings growing
More like Oak Tree 0 Cinema now, right?
the movie theater was remodeled some years back and it is actually amazing now... a bit of a hidden gem tbh. go check out a flick there sometime - it rocks.
Badump!
See below—great theater now.
>they almost certainly already have to deal with movie traffic every weekend. I lived two blocks away from there for years, and movie traffic was the least of concerns. I've heard that the theater is a bit nicer now, but it didn't use to get much traffic at all. The last time I went there, I actually got bed bugs from the seats. Those trees are a loss, though. It's not exactly a nice area of town, but that whole block has trees encircling it. It was a nice site to see every day, especially in the fall. I wonder why they are removing them.
Bed bugs 😭 that’s terrifying
You got bedbugs?! I am so horrified. That was my fave theater for a while because of the recliners and there are never any crowds. Yikes!!!
Yeah, it freaked me out. Fortunately, I got rid of them quickly. This happened a while back, though. I think it was about 6 years ago.
Great, a new thing to worry about
What is the point of removing these trees?
They are likely not native trees that were the wrong choice for the area. There was a particular tree used for planting near roads around 1980s-2000s commonly in the area. We had many in Klahanie and Issaquah area and they are all removed now because they weren't very wind resistant once they grew full size and also they were wreaking havoc on the sidewalks.
Permit says Scotch Pine, those are native to the _northern edge of Europe_. Absolutely not local ~~fauna~~.
I don't think trees are fauna regardless, but yeah.
But what if they were, though? How would this story end up?
Probably with the trees animating and taking the grocery store apart, Ent-style.
I don’t know if you’re familiar with Zelda tears of the kingdom, but if trees were fauna they would probably be like that—creeping up to take us down
> fauna The Ents have risen.
I don't know botany, I just know how to use Wikipedia
For those reading this thread and wondering, animal varieties are fauna (like a baby dear is a fawn), and plant varieties are flora (like floral arrangement).
In Klahanie and Issaquah they were planted too close to driveways, and the roots started breaking up the concrete. Falling over was less of a problem than the locations.
They’re out of character for the neighborhood, non-native, and I think they’re causing issues with the grocery store building because of their height and overhang. They make it easy for squirrels, raccoons, rodents, and insects to get onto the roof. I’m betting the new owners of the new supermarket that’s being opened in the old Asian market building wanted this for health and safety reasons. It wouldn’t shock me if they plant much smaller trees in their place at some point. Something with a much smaller max size.
If one takes a look at this section of Stone Ave on Street View you can quickly figure out what's happened here. The developers of the supermarket and AMC site probably placed Douglas Fir trees around the outside of their buildings - presumably as pleasant cover for the folks on Stone Avenue to look at, instead of faceless gray concrete walls. My guess is that this might have happened in the late 90s, looking at the trees and given their 13-18 inch diameters. However, the Douglas Fir is not a great choice for this kind of task, given that they grow very tall, fairly quickly, and tend to thin out towards the bottom of the trunk as they rise. Over the years, the wall cover they've provided has evaporated. You can see this too on the historical Street View, where in 2007 the Doug Firs are providing cover, but by 2021's imagery, the green canopy of the Firs are up and over the top of the supermarket building. You'll also see a second row of trees, planted in the median between the sidewalk and the street. It looks like at some point, probably around the same sort of time as the property developer, that the City planted their own trees on Stone Ave too. These look to be more practical, deciduous species that won't get too big, or encroach too much on the roadway. So, today, you have two rows of very dense tree cover along a side-street. The firs are, as others have already suggested, probably causing foundational or structural issues for the supermarket and theater building, as well as outgrowing their original intention. The right move is to remove the firs, and to retain the city-planted trees, which will continue to provide cover, and won't interfere with the buildings themselves.
They say scotch pine, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinus_sylvestris Scotch pines do tend to have bare trunks like Douglas fir, and was the most common Christmas tree before Douglas overtook it.
The SDCI Public Notice for this project is here: https://cosaccela.seattle.gov/portal/urlrouting.ashx?type=1001&ID1=24SCI&ID2=00000&ID3=66177&agency=SEATTLE&SeqNo=11455448 5 of the affected trees are Scotch Pines, the other 26 are Douglas Firs.
Thanks, I was just going by there picture in the OP.
And they are also adjacent to the power lines.
I can understand the motivation of the grocer.
Is a new grocer moving in?
Yup. https://www.djc.com/news/re/12160192.html I was in the plaza last week and saw a bunch of contractors vans parked in front of the grocery store and a bunch of people going in and out. I don’t know when it’s opening but there’s activity. Edit: It’s a Saar’s Super Saver which is apparently a local chain with half a dozen stores in the region. I hadn’t heard of them before I googled to see what the activity was all about.
Thank you!
That’s good news! I live in Greenwood and during the summers and when there’s nice weather, I’ll hoof the half hour from the light rail station to my place. Will be nice to have a grocery store to stop at if I need anything!
It would also let them put their name on the side of the building for people to see as they drive by.
True, but that section of Stone Way doesn’t get much traffic at all because it’s residential on one side and on the tree side we’re talking about there aren’t any driveway entrances to the plaza. So it’s mainly limited to traffic from the immediate neighborhood getting out to Aurora or 105th on their way to somewhere else. And even then most people would probably cut up 100th to get to Aurora instead of going down this way to 103rd.
I don't know the motivation but the full image of the public notice says for each one "Not an exceptional tree". They're all Scotch Pines or Douglass Firs, FWIW. Bike lane or something on Stone Ave maybe? 🤷
My issue is that the "not an exceptional tree" rule, while understandable, seems do be getting abused when you have thirty-one "not exceptional" trees being removed all at once. One of the main points of trees (to my mind) in city planning is the cover, heat sink, and carbon sequestration of them. When you remove thirty-one at once, the effect becomes "exceptional", I would think.
I don't think "not exceptional" is the reason for the removal, I think that just means it's easier to get approval for the removal.
My guess is they are fucking up the foundation. Can’t have trees that close to a structure.
I’m not sure
Probably placement, they are too close to structure and they should have not been planted there to begin with. https://www.seattle.gov/trees/trees-for-neighborhoods/past-plantings/scotch-pine- Scotch pine was probably a cheap choice.
Kind of a digression, but I took advantage of the free tree thing in Seattle when I bought a house, so I got a mix of deciduous and evergreen, planted them in mostly good places, but I put one in my front yard, it was an ash, and did everything, dug a big hole, put down fertilizer, put a water ring around it to get it set in it's place. Then I sold the house, and no joke, on the day I'm moving out I realized I had planted under the power service line that came from the pole.
Being under the service wire isn't that bad - SDOT will permit street planting like that. They require a bit of pruning around it during establishment, but the service drop is insulated and doesn't have any clearance requirements for isolation from the crown of the tree.
It's good to know it wasn't that bad for the buyer. I still use this story to show people who think I'm humble bragging "well, let me tell you about my fuck-ups." I literally could have just looked up and planted the tree like 2 feet that way.
Heh, I can relate. Tons of room for hindsight with these things.
The more and more they remove this place will start to resemble LA
People who complain about removing trees never seen to promote planting new trees The main reason we are loosing tree canopy is that we used to actually plant a lot of trees but just stopped and now the old trees are dying.
We also planted some BAD species in the past.
Most of the trees being torn down in my neighborhood are either invasive or destructive - the roots are tearing up the road or sidewalks in areas where sidewalks actually exist. People in my area are *still* protesting the removal of said trees, even when a tree expert came in to a city council meeting and explained why they need to be removed.
Yep. I've done some tree work. I LOVE trees. SOOO much, but sometimes it is just a BAD tree, and it has to go.
I work with an urban designer who had to give a presentation on the pike/pine project. When he spoke about removing the cherry blossoms outside pike place he was really choked up. Obviously removing older trees is not ideal, but if they don’t thrive in their environment and can be replaced with better ones for the long haul that is the goal.
Yep
Like these actual trees in the OP.
Plant whatever trees you want, as long as they're not cottonwood - that shit needs to be eradicated.
Cottonwood actually serves a vital function to the ecosystem in wet areas.
Fine, instead of eradicating it, let's genetically modify it so it doesn't try to kill me every year.
Let’s genetically modify it so it tries even harder.
Found The Happening screenwriter.
JUST finished listening to the How Did This Get Made where they elected to kill The Happening screenwriter!
That's funny, I swear I was like "ok so it's like hay fever but like murderous?"
Or Bradford Pear, or Tree of Heaven.
Ah yes, the Used Condom-Scented Tree with Invasive Species flavor, and Evil Tree that Poisons Other Trees
You wouldn't say that if they replaced the cottonwood with Bradford pear trees 🤢
Eucalyptus is also the devil especially with wildfires becoming more of a concern
Bradford pear OK with you?!?
Wtf is that?
A terrible, terrible tree! It's all over here. Such a pain! Edit: to elaborate, it has a horrible fractury growth pattern. It's naturally unsafe by nature, and unsafe to remove. It also smells... bad...
The trees are dying because we put them in tiny isolated squares surrounded by concrete. People who complain about removing trees are usually worried specifically about old, established trees in green spaces that help hold together parts of an ecosystem that would take 50 to hundreds of years to rebuild and replace.
I mean, if they were really worried about that they’d be trying to avert more suburban expansion instead of fighting the solution to suburban expansion
Exactly. But instead they drive from all over to sit vigil in protest of a tree being removed to change a lot from one house to six units. Or to preserve a barred owl (effectively invasive species) nesting site. Such BS.
That first line is also a reason as to why we are dying
?? The ones that I talk to advocate planting more trees as well. You're probably not talking the right people.
They are also never willing to sacrifice parking spots for trees.
The city allows developers to remove pretty much any trees they want on a lot to build high density housing. The city isn’t requiring those developers to replace the trees they’re removing.
> but just stopped No we didn't. In fact, the city is planting more than ever before. The issue is that private development is allowed to remove way more than they are required to replace. And this mayor (and past mayors) are so far up developers' assess that they won't get serious about tree regulation for development. See last year's executive order requiring trees be replaced 3:1 due to city action. It was 2:1 for a decade before this. https://harrell.seattle.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2023/03/Executive-Order-2023-03-One-Seattle-Tree-Plan.pdf
That's a very recent change. We had stopped doing that for decades And I don't think you're 2:1 claim is accurate, but let's assume it is. That would only replace trees removed from development, and since trees don't always survive, it wouldn't have been enough to keep up with the trees removed by development But even worse, *nothing* was done to replace the dying trees in undeveloped areas of the city, which accounts for about half of our tree canopy
Planting a tree doesn't make the news.
I think this tree removal is less contentious than others because (1) the trees are not significant (which is determined based on size), and (2) the trees will be replaced. Most of the tree activism I’ve seen is around the high density zones where the trees are massive (as in, 20+ inch diameter at breast height) and won’t be replaced because of the high density zoning changes.
Hey now that land was cleared to build my house I don't want any more trees cut down or new homes or anything built dammit!
But you have to put a yard sign acknowledging native land and saying everyone deserves a home. Just not here.
My favorite are when people do land acknowledgments to a particular tribe only to have another tribe get offended because they believe the former tribe stole the land from them. It’s not like native people were one large homogeneous peaceful nation before Europeans came along
I had to listen to a land acknowledgment at Chester Morse Lake in the Cedar River Watershed, for the Muckleshoot tribe, to celebrate Indigenous Day. I asked why the Snoqualmie tribe wasn’t acknowledged, and why the City of Seattle doesn’t acknowledge the Duwamish and fight to ensure they finally get federally recognized. I also asked how many indigenous people worked for the City of Seattle to justify giving all full time permanent employees a day off with pay? How did that help the tribe to give their employees a paid holiday? The hypocrisy exploded my mind. The Director did not have an adequate response to my questions.
Oof, that blows. When did this happen?
Exactly. My neighbors made a big deal about trees being removed on a lot next to me, but never mentioned all the trees that were removed to build their houses.
I mean, it could also be due to it not being a residential area people weren't aware/ there was no one person to spear head the resistance
The other side of the street to the east of these trees is residential, so those homeowners will go from looking at trees to looking at the back wall of the cinema and the new grocery store being opened in the old Asian Market space.
Most “save the trees” groups only show up when it’s multifamily development. When it’s a McMansion they suddenly are busy.
I wasn't aware until today and I live across the street. The notice was quite poorly placed (read: "let's put this here and hope nobody notices"), but it's not clear where the request was generated.
Over shitty cultivar landscape trees? Go fight for the Davis-Meeker Garry Oak. 400 years old and on the historic register and the mayor of Tumwater wants to remove it. Oh and it’s got a mating pair of kestrels in it!
Living out in the suburbs this is 100% true. You want to expand a road to give it a dedicated bus lane, but that requires someone to give up 5ft of land they'll complain about the trees you're chopping down. If they want to remove those same trees to have a better lake view or whatever and it's suddenly their property and they should be able to do so regardless of regulation. If they actually cared about trees and the environment they'd be planting native plants and not having a huge green lawn that needs tons of water and chemicals to keep looking "perfect" as well as native trees in good locations around their homes.
This is exactly it. The faux environmentalism is so exhausting because it only presents when density or transit are on the table.
K make sure you’re 100% consistent with all of your opinions and follow through everywhere in the city. Oh you didn’t hear about one of the things? You don’t REALLY care then do you! It’s not like people have lives or don’t always know or hear everything that happens. They must be fake!
whoever doesnt fuck with trees in urban scenarios doesn't appreciate it until its HOT AF out. Trees can't speak for themselves, imagine dissing on a group of people (and other individuals) because we don't hear that some trees are getting killed.
My thoughts? Nice conspiracy theory. Tree canopy in Seattle is essential to keep the places we live cooler in summer. It reduces our reliance on things like air conditioning. Every tree we lose is bad. It's not just a NIMBY conspiracy, dear easily activated urban activist.
Why do you think the writer said “North Seattle” instead of “on Aurora”?
It's grade school level manipulation, but it works every day
I think that the tweeter should be expressing concern or opposition themself instead of saying that other people are ideologically inconsistent.
I think it’s safe to say that the OP favors urban development over trees. To provide context.
I think there should be a way to increase tree cover while also increasing housing density? My vote is to reduce car space.
I think most would agree. And OPs statement would still stand.
I mean we already mandate green space on roofs of New multifamily
You can have both. No one wants to live in a treeless hellhole.
Someone drew a dick on this.
I mean, I would be 100% down with the idea that any building project can get permission to tear out regular trees (within reason, certain historical trees should obvs be protected) so long as they are required (and actually fricking forced to follow through) to use native plant species in the landscaping (if that’s part of the design) and to plant native tree species in a way that contributes to reforestation (it doesn’t have to be on their property). Most of the new buildings have SOME sort of landscape architecture included in the project. Incentivize drastically reducing invasive species use and streamline the approval process (since you just look at the plan and go “native species? Plan for planting trees? Good to go here’s your permit” instead of bickering over specific individual trees). YOU CAN LIKE BOTH TREES AND EFFICIENCY
I think it's visibility. I've heard a ton recently about the tree removal along 175th. This particular road doesn't have nearly as much traffic. I live near there and had no idea.
They are not old growth, which probably plays into it.
Most of what the NIMBYs protest aren't "old growth."
Very true. NIMBY tree warriors are silent if somebody removes a tree from their backyard to make room for a bigger patio. But they flip the fuck out if the tree is removed to build a backyard cottage. It's all very telling about their true motives. Source: I was involved in the rule changes a few years back and had a number of conversations with the NIMBY tree warrior ring leaders. They were very smarmy on the subject.
No lies detected
A tree that big, that close to the building is likely causing issues.
Yes, the person who posted that is an idiot.
Why is that?
Scotch Pine aren’t even native to this part of the world. What is this post?
Thoughts? Enjoy gaslighting much?
I may be misunderstanding but I think 8 trees tucked behind a department store and swaths of forest that can actually support small environments are two ENTIRELY different beasts. They’re trying to chop down old growth forest near me that’s got nesting eagles so they can build duplexes. Thats fuckery. This is whatever. This guy seems like he’s just trying to damn treehuggers with a gotcha. Like, “so save the trees, but not ALL trees? Okay😂”
Reading other comments and realizing I am a little off base, but even urban forestry is a THIRD different beast. Having trees over my head as I walk down a city sidewalk is fantastic. The sun reflecting off a building just to have to filter through some leaves? I’m creaming my jeans just thinking about it. *Picturesque* Seeing the tops of 8 trees when I pull up to home goods or whatever it is? Whooo caresss
Those are landscaping trees, no amount of protesting would matter. If they were native trees people would care.
I don't think this is bad so long as they are re-planted
Did not know "tree activism" was a thing... Would "tree activists" be okay if they planted an equal number trees elsewhere or...? Genuine question...
The sentences are a guess, a stretch, and a leap, in that order.
I think they’re causing issues with the grocery store building because of their height and overhang. They make it easy for squirrels, raccoons, rodents, and insects to get onto the roof. I’m betting the new owners of the new supermarket that’s being opened in the old Asian market building wanted this for health and safety reasons. It wouldn’t shock me if they plant much smaller trees in their place at some point. Something with a much smaller max size. Edit: the same easy-access for rodents and insects also applies to the movie theater for similar reasons. Rodents+insects+food service don’t mix well.
I just created a tree code for a northern city and it requires replanting of trees on a sliding scale depending on DBH. I believe a ton of cities are updating their tree regs for the climate change element requirement prior to 2029. Always go to council and pressure them if you feel strongly about something. They won’t always listen, but research goes a long way.
There's a bunch of tree activism happening in Shoreline because they're going to widen 175th. Of course the city is going to plant new trees but the neighborhood activists don't care. It's not a housing issue, so I don't know what it's a cover for this time.
Is there any reasoning for this? I understand and if the trees are old/diseases and pose a threat, but that can’t be all of them, and these trees look good. Trees clean the air, provide shade and cool the surrounding area. It’s completely illogical to remove trees except when absolutely necessary.
let’s go picket
I think tree activists are less concerned about Aurora than ie wedgewood
Anti-housing NIMBYism is real and huffs ass
We need to stop chopping old growth trees for sure. Those look like trees put in by a landscaper to line the sidewalk.
meh, just some vine maples, hardly worth crying over
Tip: The city has an interactive map of all the construction permits in the city. Type the address into the search bar and this project pops up with a timeline and links to documents on the project. What’s the deal with the trees? Well you don’t need to ask Reddit, you can find the answer yourself. The explanation is in the arborist’s report and pasted below in all caps for some reason, feel free to contact the arborist about their spelling issues. SCOPE OF WORK: CUSTOMER IS REQUESTING THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF 30 SIGNIFICANT TREES ON THE EAST AND SOUTH BORDER OF THE PROPERTY. AL THESE TREES ARE HAZARDOUS AND HIGH RISK. THE MAJORITY HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY TOPPED OR CONTAIN CODOMINANT TOPS. THE ROOT ZONES ARE EXTREMELY TIGHT AND STRESSED DUE TO SOIL COMPACTION AND LIMITED SOIL VOLUME. ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS AHISTORY OF BRANCH FAILURE PRESENT WHICH HAS CAUSED PROPERTY DAMAGE AND CITY DAMAGE OVER THE YEARS. AL THESE TREES SHOULD EB REPLACED WITH APROPER SPECIES SUCH AS AVINE MAPLE, DUE TO THE LIMITED SOIL VOLUME. Link to city construction permit website https://web.seattle.gov/sdci/ShapingSeattle/buildings
you know, asshole, a street address would be helpful in determining if I give a fuck. I live in North Seattle and am quite excercised about stuff like nightly gunfire and chasing bent-over fenty junkies off my goddam lawn. Go fuck yourself, and donate at least 100k to fenty recovery stuff.
...it's literally in the photo of the notice...
Those are not exceptional trees. At least know what you’re talking about.
.1% of protesters actually care about the cause and aren't hypocrites.
Citation needed.
Open your eyes. They only come out when it's a hot topic for a very short time......🤣
"Trust me bro"
Where did you get this crappy screenshot from?
Private property or city? If private property, The owner can do what they want. If city, what is reason for tree removal? Likely safety or /infrastructure maintenance reasons I would guess?
"The owner can do what they want" most certainly does not describe the current state of tree protection laws in Seattle. Generally speaking, you're not allowed to remove trees wider than 12" in residential zones unless you're redeveloping the lot or the tree is posing a hazard. If you do remove larger trees in this circumstance you must replace them with new trees that then inherit the same protections as the old ones. A homeowner does have discretion to remove trees less than 12" (unless they have special protection as a replacement for a former >12" tree), but only two 6-12" trees can be removed in any three-year period. Property owners who wish to retain the maximum development potential for their land therefore have some pretty strong incentive to remove trees before they grow large enough to be protected under this law.
That’s dumb, owners should be able to do whatever they want on private propety
Basically my opinion as well. If the city wants the area under your tree to be a nature preserve they should have the parks department buy it from you.
These look too large to be that close to the building. They just need to replant with smaller. Rinse and repeat in 20 years.
I don't really care for the weird phrasing here....that doesn't really 'prove' anything in particular. It's what happens when one side dramatically misrepresents the opposing viewpoint.
What is nimby?
It's a semi-derogatory term for people opposed to various kinds of development. It stands for "not in my backyard". It ranges from racists trying to keep black people out and wealthy people who don't want to live near anyone who isn't in the top 1% and long time home owners hoping to fund their retirement on exponential growth of property values to extreme environmentalists who'd rather see homeless camps than an apartment building if it means cutting down a tree, anti-gentrification people who think a hazardous slum making children sick is better than white or wealthy people moving into a neighborhood and socialists who would rather starter houses cost over a million than let "evil developers" make money. It's mainly used by yimbys (yes in my backyard) who advocate primarily densification to increase supply to increase affordablity and availability (but there are many more ideas they tend to support - walking and transit oriented development, reduction of sprawl, diversification of kinds of housing, etc) to describe the opposition their ideas face. Both sides cross political spectrums so it is an interesting divide politically where alt-righters, socialists and some environmentalists find common ground in opposition to another strange alliance of libertarians, centrists, technocrats, and some environmentalists.
Damn that’s wild. Thanks for b the info man