Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[cozmoose]

Originally Posted by arod74

Yes I heard the same. I heard that the one in east sac might also be in danger of being cut down. Hopefully they can flex the layout to keep the pine. It's a beautiful tree on par with anything displayed on a wall in the musuem. Besides I love saying Bunya-Bunya...

save time and money. cut the tree.

[creamcityleo79]

Originally Posted by cozmoose

save time and money. cut the tree.

If we keep saying that, Sacramento will be nothing more than Las Vegas with a state capitol building.

[kryptos]

Originally Posted by neuhickman79

If we keep saying that, Sacramento will be nothing more than Las Vegas with a state capitol building.

if anything, sac needs more trees

[cozmoose]

Isn't Sacramento supposedly city with the most trees in this country? (btw, anyone that has ever been to Atlanta would laugh at that assertion.)

I think Sacramento, even downtown, has plenty enough trees to go around for everyone. The builder can always plant new ones somewhere else. whats the big deal?

Besides, I don't think Sacramento valley area is suppose to have lush green foliage. I always thought this area is akin to chaparral terrain. Leafy trees being planted here is just as alien as concrete and glass.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by cozmoose

Isn't Sacramento supposedly city with the most trees in this country? (btw, anyone that has ever been to Atlanta would laugh at that assertion.)

I think Sacramento, even downtown, has plenty enough trees to go around for everyone. The builder can always plant new ones somewhere else. whats the big deal?

Besides, I don't think Sacramento valley area is suppose to have lush green foliage. I always thought this area is akin to chaparral terrain. Leafy trees being planted here is just as alien as concrete and glass.

Nope you're wrong. When early explorers first saw the Central Valley they remarked that it looked like a vast 'english' park because of many oak trees. Chaparral is not even common to the Valley. Therefore, leafy trees are not 'alien' but instead are natural to Sacramento. But the Bunya Pine is alien (its from the South Pacific) and isn't even a true pine.

"even downtown has plenty enough trees to go around for everyone" -what the heck does that mean? You can't pull up a tree and carry it around with you for shade. We can always use more shading street trees as anyone who walks our downtown streets regularly in the summertime would clearly understand. The number of trees and city title are meaningless when you're walking down a street in the middle of day on a hot summer afternoon and there's no shade.

As for the whole 'city of trees' thing... its a little confusing but I believe it means that Sacramento has the largest planted urban canopy and has nothing to do with total urban forest.

[cozmoose]

Originally Posted by ozone

Nope you're wrong. When early explorers first saw the Central Valley they remarked that it looked like a vast 'english' park because of many oak trees. Chaparral is not even common to the Valley. Therefore, leafy trees are not 'alien' but instead are natural to Sacramento. But the Bunya Pine is alien (its from the South Pacific) and isn't even a true pine.

ok. I'm no tree expert. I'll take your word for it.
So are you in favor of replanning fire access road for an "alien" tree?

"even downtown has plenty enough trees to go around for everyone" -what the heck does that mean? You can't pull up a tree and carry it around with you for shade. We can always use more shading street trees as anyone who walks our downtown streets regularly in the summertime would clearly understand. The number of trees and city title are meaningless when you're walking down a street in the middle of day on a hot summer afternoon and there's no shade.

As for the whole 'city of trees' thing... its a little confusing but I believe it means that Sacramento has the largest planted urban canopy and has nothing to do with total urban forest.

If someone new to Sacramento was taking a walk in downtown, I don't think that person would think that the area is in short supply of trees.

And if you desire a shade in the summertime, nothing could be better than tall skyscrapers! There are some areas in NYC and Chicago that are in perpetual shade.
More buildings + less trees = more shade!

[goldcntry]

Originally Posted by cozmoose

And if you desire a shade in the summertime, nothing could be better than tall skyscrapers! There are some areas in NYC and Chicago that are in perpetual shade.
More buildings + less trees = more shade!

(glancing apprehensively over at wburg and greenmidtown) Cozmoose, you must have a very twisted sense of humor or just love tweeking folks!

You should know by now to never come between a Land Park or Midtown Sacramentan and their trees! Their bark makes you wish they'd just bite ya instead! You're really going out on a limb there bro! You may want to consider turning over a new leaf. Ok, enough branching out! Back to the root of the subject. I'll get off my stump now...

... and no more puns!


(making like a tree and leaf-ing)

[arod74]

Originally Posted by cozmoose

And if you desire a shade in the summertime, nothing could be better than tall skyscrapers! There are some areas in NYC and Chicago that are in perpetual shade.
More buildings + less trees = more shade!

Not sure if you have noticed cozmoose but we haven't had a stellar track record of erecting really tall skyscrapers lately. But come to think of it, if we did cut down the tree and planted a sapling in another location on the crocker grounds it would probably be full grown by the time aura gets funding and permits..

[ozone]

Actually my first reaction was that they should not hold up a project for one an alien 'pine' tree. But I don't know enough about the site to say whether or not the tree should stay or go. If it's gonna cost a lot and be a big headache I would say bye bye bunya.

The problem is not that there's a shortage of trees but in a climate like Sacramento (in an average year) almost every sidewalk needs some kind of shade. Providing shade along a sidewalks will encourage people to walk and isn't a walkable central city is one of our goals? The other day I was walking along a section of J Street where there were no trees (in front of the Elks building). It was pretty uncomfortable and I will likely avoid walking down that part of J in the future. Trees also make economic sense. If you have a business and want to increase foot traffic you should make sure people are comfortable getting to your shop. They also lower electric bills. I'm moving my buisness into a new space in Midtown in September and will be planting new street trees to replace the old Elms that were removed a few years ago.

[wburg]

It's not just *a* tree, it's a heritage tree (and one that is at least 120 years old.) The fire department has no problem rerouting their access road.

In terms of trees per capita within the city limits, yes, we are #1 in the US.

Considering that we're going to lose about a third of our tree canopy over the next few years (due to the ravages of Dutch elm disease and poor urban forestry practices in the past) saving trees (and replainting) is a high priority.

cozmoose: Where do you get the idea that this was chapparal country? Are you new to the region? The Sacramento Valley is a river valley, not a desert. The soil here is the product of millions of years of alluvial deposits washing down from the mountains, and until we took measures to prevent it, the whole valley used flood pretty much every year (now, with our best efforts, only large parts of it flood.) The yearly inundation, fine soil, and close-to-the-surface water table mean that it's an ideal spot for tree growth, as early explorers found when they arrived.

[jsf8278]

Originally Posted by cozmoose

Isn't Sacramento supposedly city with the most trees in this country? (btw, anyone that has ever been to Atlanta would laugh at that assertion.)

I think Sacramento, even downtown, has plenty enough trees to go around for everyone. The builder can always plant new ones somewhere else. whats the big deal?

Besides, I don't think Sacramento valley area is suppose to have lush green foliage. I always thought this area is akin to chaparral terrain. Leafy trees being planted here is just as alien as concrete and glass.

I lived in atlanta for ten years. The difference is that the trees are natural in Atlanta and here they were all planted. (i think)
Additionally, the city of Atlanta has very few trees. Its the suburbs where all the trees are.

[SLO]

^^good point, most of the trees in the Valley are planted, not natural. The growing conditions in the valley are tremendous, so trees grow very quickly.
The valley is not naturally canopied with trees, all you have to do is drive outside the city limits to see that. Stockton is the same way, it has fantastic tree coverage, but its all planted.
Cities in the south like Atlanta are built in the middle of southern pine forests, so the city is basically carved out of the forest. Houston is like that as well.
I think the City of Trees is more of a nickname. The good thing to me about Sac is that it does have trees, and its relatively easy to plant and grow new ones quickly....

[wburg]

Wow, it appears that the "Big Lie" is alive and well. Repeat a lie often enough, and it becomes truth...

There were trees here when Sutter arrived. The trees here now aren't necessarily the same trees, but yes, there were trees here. The trees have, during the span of European-American occupation of the land, become a defining feature of the city, thus the "City of Trees" moniker.

150 years of agricultural land clearance might have just a teensy bit to do with why you don't see large forested areas just outside the city limits.

[innov8]

^ Nobody said there were NO trees.

Mercy General Hospital Project

The Mercy General Hospital and Sacred Heart Parish School’s Mixed Use
Project (proposed project). There are three separate project components
within the proposed project: the MGH component, the SHPS component, and
the residential component. Collectively, these three components include the
construction of the 123,350 square foot (sf) Alex G. Spanos Heart Center
(Heart Center); surface parking lots on the existing SHPS campus and at the
northeast and southeast corners of the hospital campus; and a residential
complex with 20 for-rent units along H Street. The project also includes
the relocation of SHPS west of 39th Street between H and J streets where
the existing Mercy Care facility and 17 residential units are located. The
demolition of several buildings is included in this project: Mercy General
Hospital’s East Wing and chapel; the existing SHPS; the Mercy Care facility;
and 17 residential units.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by innov8

^ Nobody said there we NO trees.

Well, you didn't, but that isn't quite "nobody":

jsf8278:
The difference is that the trees are natural in Atlanta and here they were all planted. (i think)

cozmoose:
Besides, I don't think Sacramento valley area is suppose to have lush green foliage. I always thought this area is akin to chaparral terrain. Leafy trees being planted here is just as alien as concrete and glass.

The "City of Trees" thing isn't just a marketing gimmick, even though it is an oft-used marketing gimmick. Our urban forest is a distinctive feature.

Sacramento's waterfront in 1849. I realize it's just a drawing, but barring extreme artistic license it does suggest trees more than ten years old.

Another view, also showing mature trees in 1849.

Most of these waterfront trees were eliminated later, as the city filled in, and there were almost certainly more before 49ers started showing up and cutting them down for firewood and to clear the way for the rapidly expanding city.

I'm sorry if I'm coming off as confrontational about this, but when people's opinions fly in the face of the facts, the facts still win.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by SLO

^^good point, most of the trees in the Valley are planted, not natural. The growing conditions in the valley are tremendous, so trees grow very quickly.
The valley is not naturally canopied with trees, all you have to do is drive outside the city limits to see that. Stockton is the same way, it has fantastic tree coverage, but its all planted.
Cities in the south like Atlanta are built in the middle of southern pine forests, so the city is basically carved out of the forest. Houston is like that as well.
I think the City of Trees is more of a nickname. The good thing to me about Sac is that it does have trees, and its relatively easy to plant and grow new ones quickly....

The Sacramento Valley is not a desert. For centuries, the Sacramento Valley has had groves of naturally growing Valley Oaks.

[innov8]

It looks like the second pour for the Sutter Medical Foundation will be happening soon.
http://sutterhealth.oxblue.com/smcsacramento/

[bennywah]

The city of trees comes about because per captia Sacramento has more trees within the city than any other city save paris, and Sacramento used to sit within a natural oak forest, amongst other hardy trees, since the valley used to flood regulary before being levee'd the ground could very easily support a forrest of trees. Remember Sacremento was also raised to get it out of the danger from floods so that would be a nother reason for mass clearing, in any case lots of trees naturally and planted reside in sac.

[cozmoose]

Crocker museum's transformation into a world class museum is very important to me. Its current facility is woefully inadequate. So I'm going to object to anything that hinders its expansion.

But wait,...its not just a tree, its a heritage tree. um...so what?

its just a stupid label made up by tree huggers to artificially give more importance to an old tree. Tell me, whats the difference between 20 year old tree and 120 year old? does the older tree provide better shade? ridiculous.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by cozmoose

Crocker museum's transformation into a world class museum is very important to me. Its current facility is woefully inadequate. So I'm going to object to anything that hinders its expansion.

But wait,...its not just a tree, its a heritage tree. um...so what?

its just a stupid label made up by tree huggers to artificially give more importance to an old tree. Tell me, whats the difference between 20 year old tree and 120 year old? does the older tree provide better shade? ridiculous.

I was quick to judge too, My first thought was, cut the F#cker Down! But, honestly, if they can build around it without compromising their project that would be much better. I love trees just as much "tree huggers".