Quote:
Originally Posted by halifaxboyns
I wonder if the trees were just nearing the end of their lives?
We have the same problem out here, but we have a lot trees (I think they are furs??) that are nearing the end of their lives and are dying - since they typically grow for about 25 years. People don't seem to understand that and get upset when developers take them down so appeals end up at the appeal board over trees. One the other day was 4 hours on the removal of 5 trees; which the arborist for the developer proved were going to die in about 5 years time. He was going to replace them with new trees; but it does take time to mature.
Some trees do live way longer lives; but in the case of some species...they don't. I wonder if that was the case here? Short life cycle, take them down now before they die and become a hazard?
|
Even in an urban setting, the shortest-lived trees--such as birch and ash--should last around 40-50 years (much longer than this in the wild).
Firs, even in a city, can live for hundreds.
They may have been nearing the end of their life, but I doubt this because there was no mention of it. Most of the time, when city trees are close to death, groundskeepers will reveal their thoughts on when the trees should be taken down--given the physical evidence of the trees.
These trees were simply just destroyed.
But who knows...
In any event: I'm very excited for this library--and I hope they replace the trees in some form.