Too many trees in East Dulwich. (Lounged)

[jrussel]

EDOldie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Oh god here we go again, not seeing the wood for

> the trees. I think he/she has a point, the problem

> in Southwark (particularly) is that trees have

> been planted inappropriately. Large trees should

> be planted where they can grow fully (i.e. parks

> open spaces etc) and smaller trees along the

> byways and highways. I would call that planning. I

> also think the pollarding of trees is cruel and

> disfiguring. If said tree had been planted in the

> right place it would not be necessary. And here?s

> the controversial bit, I'd be all for the removal

> of large trees which are clearly in the wrong

> place, if they were replaced with smaller trees.

> No doubt I'll be hanging from one of the larger

> ones after the next forum drinks. Altogether now,

> ?I?m a lumberjack, and I?m ok?

Thank you EDoldie; I am glad that someone has some sympathy with my feelings on this matter. You are quite right that parks and open spaces are the correct locations for trees. As I tried to make clear in my original post, it is not trees themselves that I have an issue with; it is their inappropriate placement within the urban environment.

[Shaolin Wolf]

Surely urban environment is misplaced amongst the trees, not other way round..can`t wait to see your letter to Boris..might see if any tv production companies are looking for new comedy material :))

[EDOldie]

Shaolin, it's a word I don't use often but, wrong. An urban environment would be misplaced in a forest but not necessarily the other way round. Lets accept that we live in a city and give the trees a chance. There are few things more beautiful than some of the fully grown, and growing, trees in Dulwich Park, Dulwich Woods, Peckham Rye and on Goose Green to name but a few locations. Also there are few more unsightly and I'll say it again, cruel sights, than trees pollarded or overcrowded or hit by buses in surroundings that are not appropriate to their mass. London is a series of joined up villages and small towns so not planned in the sense that NYC was. But that is precisely why we have planners today to protect and improve the environment for all of us. Don't let some misplaced romantic 'green' idea distract from the reality that we don?t live in forests anymore. EdOldie, Traitors Gate, Tower of London.

[Jah Lush]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jah Lush will protect you EdOldie ;-)

Oh no he won't.

[EDOldie]

Lush!!! I'm shocked. Last time I buy you a drink, MATE!

[*Bob*]

jrussel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thank you EDoldie; I am glad that someone has some

> sympathy with my feelings on this matter.

Joining forces with someone who believes trees 'feel pain'.. is this wise?

I wish the both of you the best of luck with your (disputed) subsidence claims.

[Shaolin Wolf]

I know what you are saying makes sense EDOldie and i am merely baiting the original perp for not expressing their true agenda in this matter ie possible planning application failure due to meddling by locals (see earlier posting by originator). I`ve sat watching this forum for past 6 months with much enjoyment at many of the postings and their scribes and it will be something i miss when i move back north of the river next month.

SW

[Jah Lush]

Oh dear do you think jrussel works for Foxtons?

[EDOldie]

The trees may not feel any pain (how do you know??, nurse the screens) but it pains me to see them chopped around like this. And they look very ugly, not as they should. Very small tree outside Oldie Towers so no claim from me and I (strangely enough) am not currently involved in any planning application that involves the removal of any tree. But I do feel very strongly about this, most people who claim to love trees can't, as I said earlier, see the wood. Jah, does anyone work for Foxtons anymore?

[Shaolin Wolf]

Maybe Jah, maybe ;-)

[Jah Lush]

EDOldie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

Jah, does anyone work for

> Foxtons anymore?

One would hope not. I hate to see people lose their jobs but that building is a carbuncle on Lordship Lane.

Oops! Sorry admin...back on topic.

"The Trees"

I took an air-rifle, shot a magpie to the ground & it died without a sound.

Your skin so pale against the fallen Autumn leaves &

no-one saw us but the trees.

Yeah, the trees, those useless trees produce the air that I am breathing.

Yeah, the trees, those useless trees; they never said that you were leaving.

I carved your name with a heart just up above - now swollen,

distorted, unrecognisable; like our love.

The smell of leaf mould & the sweetness of decay

are the incense at the funeral procession here, today.

In the trees, those useless trees, etc.

You try to shape the world to what you want the world to be.

Carving your name a thousand times won't bring you back to me.

Oh no, no I might as well go & tell it to the trees.

Go & tell it to the trees, yeah.

[*Bob*]

Do trees feel pleasure?

Maybe they really look forward to a good, hard pollarding - once a year. Who knows?

I agree with you, EDOldie - trees should be properly managed. I'm sure most other people here do as well. The thorns of the debate seem to be centred around where the right or wrong place for a tree might be.

In Jrussel's case, the answer seems to be (specifically) nowhere near the development which didn't get planning permission.

Which is a bit of a poor show.

[Brendan]

If there weren?t any trees in my garden the neighbours would be able to se straight into my garden and my living room. On those grounds I think they provide a social service.

[*Bob*]

For you..? Or for your neighbours?

[EDOldie]

So, just to pose a hypothetical problem, if its a choice between desperately needed social housing and an inappropriately planted tree the tree wins?

[*Bob*]

We're always going to need more social housing. You could uproot every green living thing for twenty miles in order to stick-up low-cost housing, and in twenty years we'll be in the same boat, only with no green living things.

[Moos]

Glad that this thread has lost its more vicious tone.

Can we just clarify exactly what's being suggested here? If we cut down large trees on pavements how will that help with relieving housing problems? The only way trees could be replaced with houses would be to eliminate parks, and I don't see anyone suggesting that. I fear we are all wandering around in circles without a clue what is actually under discussion.

(cross-posted with *bob*)

[*Bob*]

I think I've found the solution..

[EDOldie]

OK, I'll go along with *Bob*'s solution. Easily the best post of the whole discussion.

[snoozequeen1]

jrussel Wrote:

[Shaolin Wolf]

er you can`t be too vicious with the arborally challenged...although i think a care in the community sticker might be needed for JR shortly ;) The long and short of it seems that JR is annoyed the planning permission for some houses got rejected due to locals saying no thanks we`d rather have the trees...if i`m wrong JR then please correct me..the rest is completely irrelevent it seems

[clive3300]

Alan Dale Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Who proposed that London become Tokyo?

jrussel's desire to its ultimate limit - more density, more people, no trees.

EDOldie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So, just to pose a hypothetical problem, if its a

> choice between desperately needed social housing

> and an inappropriately planted tree the tree wins?

Its an interesting question, but the obvious answer is © build new accomodation on the vast number of brownfield sites over London. There are hundreds of sq km of underutilized / semi derelict land in London. There are also large amounts of poor quality low density houses in areas that should be high density - e.g. 2 storey houses a couple hundred metres south of the Thames in SE1. These should be high rise.

[????]

I can't be arsed to read all this - is this the best bit of fishing EVER....or for real?

[mightyroar]

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> "The Trees"

>

> I took an air-rifle, shot a magpie to the ground &

> it died without a sound.

> Your skin so pale against the fallen Autumn leaves

> &

> no-one saw us but the trees.

> Yeah, the trees, those useless trees produce the

> air that I am breathing.

> Yeah, the trees, those useless trees; they never

> said that you were leaving.

> I carved your name with a heart just up above -

> now swollen,

> distorted, unrecognisable; like our love.

> The smell of leaf mould & the sweetness of decay

> are the incense at the funeral procession here,

> today.

> In the trees, those useless trees, etc.

> You try to shape the world to what you want the

> world to be.

> Carving your name a thousand times won't bring you

> back to me.

> Oh no, no I might as well go & tell it to the

> trees.

> Go & tell it to the trees, yeah.

That truly is a great song. Most underappreciated I have always thought.

Where are we going to put all the trees then, if not in the streets? What will the dogs (snd some toddlers I have known) wee on?

[Ondine]

99 posts for a mad thread. Wow - shouldn't he get a prize? I think we should find out where he lives and plant a surprise orchard. We could get the guerilla gardener to venture down from the Elephant to do the dangerous bits. Yeah it's a plan