Although I'm not an architect, I work with architects all the time.
They love to start their projects as if trees didn't exist on the lot.
When I ask what are they going to do, you know, considering that there are huge old beautiful trees here, they just answer they'll remove them and plant new trees, and they look at me as I I was crazy.
Because they are in the way... also, most trees don't fare well alongside new construction with all the potential re-grading and sun-angle changes.
Do you own the property where the trees are being removed? if no, then why do you think you can tell others how to use their land? I swear, I've had full-grown adults cry over half dead shrubs at a city open house once. You just can't rationalize with this level of crazy.
why do you think you can tell others how to use their land?
Yeah, sometimes trees have to go. It can be a bummer, but most of the time, not a big deal. New trees grow relatively rapidly.
But, I've got to say, Non Seq, that owning a piece of property doesn't give you the right to fuck it up however you see fit. You'd be pissed if your next door neighbor wanted to store toxic waste, or opened an all-night firing range. Where ownership rights conflict with the common good, they should get trumped.
So, if a developer wants to build acres of parking on land he owns, or is going to ruin a neighborhood with a tacky high rise, other people have the right to petition the government to say no to his plans.
Plenty of examples of architects working to minimize this too though. Cutler Anderson Architects have done some beautiful projects in forested lots with minimal destruction to trees.
I never met a tree I didn't like. Cutting old trees (over 50) should be avoided at all costs...even if people have to sacrifice their stupid sprawling view.
I'm just assuming the OP is your basic NIMBY. I've worked in areas in my city where you can't even touch a branch of the trees for fear of heavy fines.
Jla-x, how well do your average tree survive relocation? We had a landscape architect relocate a few mature trees from one of our large downtown project a few years back and I was always skeptical that they would continue to grow following the move.
Could we have a little common sense, evergreen trees grow rapidly and their removal is not that big a deal. Mature deciduous trees are a different story and they often add considerable value and beauty to a project. Not only do they provide shade but the evaporative effect of the leafy canopy provides even more cooling in the summer. They can also act as a windbreak, even in the winter. I would hope any architect would look at what tree assets he has on the lot before designing the home.
Non, it really depends on the species, size of tree, how the rootball is pruned, and the conditions of the site they are being transplanted to. Larger trees are harder because of their large root system. Some are impossible if they are too large. They always go into shock for a while, but can bounce back if done correctly... Fruit trees in general do not transplant well from my experience. Palms and cacti are pretty easy as long as the soil is comparable. My main goal would be to re-establish the same biomass of the cleared area if it's unavoidable...to offset the loss...
This is why landscape architects should be a part of the design conversation right from the beginning and not as an afterthought. The relationship of a building to its context is just as important as the design of the building itself.
It depends on a lot of things, but quite often they're not on the survey and are perceived to have little value or be replaceable. I've never seen nursery grown trees to do as well as a field grown trees - too many things go wrong: genetics (nursery trees are too uniform in genetic make up), root bounding (most methods of farming trees cause bent roots or roots wrapping and eventually choking the tree), over reliance on water and fertilizer treatments, etc. Most mature trees can be moved as long as they are not the tap-rooted species, there is a cost, but significantly less than purchasing and installing in-kind.
Not all trees are valuable but an arborist and a landscape architect can help assess if certain trees have a value to the site and what the associated risks in attempting to keep a tree through construction.
Clear cutting and leveling a site makes the construction process easier, and if client and architect allow the schedule and initial construction budget dictate the project that is what will happen.
Looking at the World Trade Center site, you can see even with the kind of care those trees went in, many are struggling now. Most sites have much less maintenance and care after construction.
Most large cities require a replacement of equal caliper and abbitional trees and landscaping on top of that. I asked this question to a guy who did residential development. It didn't seem necessary to knock down all the trees. Answer not surprisingly it's cheaper to clear the site and plant new when your done.
From all the answers I think this is the most accurate, by Leandro Llorente:
"In essence, the act of "building" is destructive to begin with. Architects want to have complete freedom in manicuring a plot."
Even when architects consider planting new trees, they ask the renderer to make them transparent on the renderings. That tells you how little they care about trees.
The most valuable asset in a property are the trees. You can see it clearly here in Long Island. Go to an area where trees are big and old, the properties are priced above 1m. Go to the next village where they got rid of the trees for what ever reason, the properties are half price.
The construction is the same.
Shame on those architects that don't make the most effort to design around the existing nature.
3tk: "It depends on a lot of things, but quite often they're not on the survey and are perceived to have little value or be replaceable."
This is so bad in many ways. I'd say it's a poor job from the surveying company, but also can't the architect go in person and see the lot before they come with bulldozers do destroy nature?
joseph the skin (that's what "peu" means in french - not what you remember from looney toons which is "pew")
I can't fathom your motives for coming into an architects' forum to spill all that ignorance, maybe you should start by researching who is the biggest killer of trees nowadays - not your 50 yr old maple from your granny's homestead in greenwich, but whole forests wiped out in a day - can you tell me who it is?
Nothing looks as forlorn as a new housing development just built on someone's former farm land with a few new scraggly trees and freshly planted shrubs.
"I can't fathom your motives for coming into an architects' forum to spill all that ignorance"
This forum isn't for architects only according to the About section.
What part of what I said is wrong and why?
Please, let's not compare with who kills the most trees.
This is about architects wanting to create. Not design.
When you design, you consider all aspects of the environment where you're creating. Of course it's easier to start with a blank canvas, but architects forget that they are designing for humans who, no matter what, are natural and live in nature.
Mr. Pepe, stop trying to convince us. You're gravely ignorant and choose to paint an entire profession on, probably, one niche event dear to you. Now, perhaps there are some neighborhood kids on your lawn you should go yell at.
Trees are a renewable resource, by the way. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Human society and clients wants XYZ. That XYZ comes with a cost, not just money but it does come with a cost factor.
As we design and build, those of us who are thinking about environmental impact, we are looking at mitigating the impact. Renewable resources are among those reason for choosing wood. Stone masonry is not renewable. Once you carve it out of the hill, it's a permanent act. It would take a good billion years for new rock material to be formed. When looking to materials to build a building, you need to make a choice at what you use and how much of that material. A factor also needs to consider longevity of your buildings. Buildings that are built to last 100+ years has 3+ lifetimes over buildings built to last 30 years. Building for 30 years and replacing is wasteful. Building for 100+ years minimizes waste. Sure, some parts needs intermittant replacement but overall mass is built to sustain a long term life cycle.
Just so you know, there are tree farms that are explicitly used for harvesting the wood. Practices always involves replacing trees and a harvesting plan that is meant to be sustainable. You take a tree down, you replace it to balance the loss over landscape time. Those who took any landscape architecture course would understand what I am talking about in terms of landscape time. While I am referring from a scientific overlay view, landscape time is a sense of landscape over larger time cycle than the daily life of us. You plant a tree when they are small. You think about tree and spatial arrangement of the tree over its life. That small tree grows. It becomes bigger. So your landscape vision has long term cycle of development. You envision not only the landscape now but also in 10, 20, 30, 50, 100 years from now. It's thinking 4th dimensionally (thinking in terms of passage of time). In the end, it all balances out.
Landscape architects/designers don't just think about how the landscape looks when the architectural project is completed and installed. You're thinking in terms of decades not just in terms of months or a few years. At least a good landscape architect/designer does.
With regards to the comment about architects wanting to create not design, the reality is all creation begins a journey of designing. Whether you convey design in drawings or only keep it in the minds and convey it in the physical work. Designing is the envisioning of what is intended to be created. The reality is, a lot of design ideas never gets built or implemented. It is the reality of the world we live in. It's the reality of being an architect.
What about Sigurd Lewerentz and St. Mark's Church? He didn't start from scratch there. In fact the contrast in materiality between the birch trees and brick makes that project oh so great.
I've worked on projects where we've saved every tree we can. It's very hard to do so given regulations. For example when dealing with underground utilities they have to be so far away from trees and roots. Sometimes it's just not feasible.
Mr Pepe Le Peu: You can ask for the trees to be surveyed - and most decent surveyors can ID them as well (so you know which trees are of value), but it's extra money. An arborist is helpful in identifying the overall health of a tree (no point in trying to save one that is on its deathbed). It's not just about what's there, but the quality (and ultimately you need it on a survey to have proper locations). I've had surveys where the canopy was surveyed as well, but not often on smaller budget projects -unless the client specifically asked for it.
Some clients have very specific desires to leave their trees - Tulane and UMass were two I worked with that had arborists put dollar values on each tree. Each project had to replace the dollar value of the trees cut down (or accidentally damaged), the older the tree the more expensive the replacement to the point that it was cost prohibitive (hundreds of dollars for some of the oldest ones).
Jun 27, 16 2:27 pm ·
·
Josh,
Just so you know, in some countries, I am by definition an architect. In those countries, there isn't the bullshit word game of titles and other like bullshit bureaucracy.
I think we're being too harsh on the OP. The truth is, all of us love trees, but there are many other factors to be considered, the most important ones being constructability, budget and client. Do I want 40% ground coverage for the plot I bought for 12 million $, or 25% and retain a lot of the trees? You tell me.
"the most important ones being constructability, budget and client. Do I want 40% ground coverage for the plot I bought for 12 million $, or 25% and retain a lot of the trees? You tell me."
Are those the most important really? It sounds 1950's to me.
I had a client that wanted me to use a sea turtle shell as decoration. Giant piece.
I said NO, it goes against my values to place an exotic dead animal. The guy was fine with it.
The change starts with all of us. If you as an architect cannot protect the environment, we are doomed if we think the government will.
PS: The comments about my career like "As the office custodian or receptionist?" or "^very doubtful." are only making me feel more proud, because I ain't lying, and I smile because obviously you are far from a career like that if it makes you think it's impossible.
Hold on tduds, let me grab a few brews and then the death-match can start.
Mr. Pepe, how are those blinders? tight enough? Perhaps you're not lying since in your limited experience, it's all you tend to see, but you sure as fuck are not correct.
Why do architects cut trees all the time?
Although I'm not an architect, I work with architects all the time.
They love to start their projects as if trees didn't exist on the lot.
When I ask what are they going to do, you know, considering that there are huge old beautiful trees here, they just answer they'll remove them and plant new trees, and they look at me as I I was crazy.
Why!? In what planet do you guys live?
Because they are in the way... also, most trees don't fare well alongside new construction with all the potential re-grading and sun-angle changes.
Do you own the property where the trees are being removed? if no, then why do you think you can tell others how to use their land? I swear, I've had full-grown adults cry over half dead shrubs at a city open house once. You just can't rationalize with this level of crazy.
why do you think you can tell others how to use their land?
Yeah, sometimes trees have to go. It can be a bummer, but most of the time, not a big deal. New trees grow relatively rapidly.
But, I've got to say, Non Seq, that owning a piece of property doesn't give you the right to fuck it up however you see fit. You'd be pissed if your next door neighbor wanted to store toxic waste, or opened an all-night firing range. Where ownership rights conflict with the common good, they should get trumped.
So, if a developer wants to build acres of parking on land he owns, or is going to ruin a neighborhood with a tacky high rise, other people have the right to petition the government to say no to his plans.
sometimes we do this , but do you wish to pay more?
also, are you willing to sacrifice potentially the best usage of your site for your own purposes rather than that of the trees'?
It is eventually the client's call. Architects can play along if the clients dont mind the sacrifice and the compromises.
Plenty of examples of architects working to minimize this too though. Cutler Anderson Architects have done some beautiful projects in forested lots with minimal destruction to trees.
I never met a tree I didn't like. Cutting old trees (over 50) should be avoided at all costs...even if people have to sacrifice their stupid sprawling view.
I'm just assuming the OP is your basic NIMBY. I've worked in areas in my city where you can't even touch a branch of the trees for fear of heavy fines.
Jla-x, how well do your average tree survive relocation? We had a landscape architect relocate a few mature trees from one of our large downtown project a few years back and I was always skeptical that they would continue to grow following the move.
In essence, the act of "building" is destructive to begin with. Architects want to have complete freedom in manicuring a plot.
Could we have a little common sense, evergreen trees grow rapidly and their removal is not that big a deal. Mature deciduous trees are a different story and they often add considerable value and beauty to a project. Not only do they provide shade but the evaporative effect of the leafy canopy provides even more cooling in the summer. They can also act as a windbreak, even in the winter. I would hope any architect would look at what tree assets he has on the lot before designing the home.
cutting down three scraggly trees today, city will probably make me plant new ones. The cool thing about trees is you can always plant new ones.
(agree, giant trees are hard to replace)
Non, it really depends on the species, size of tree, how the rootball is pruned, and the conditions of the site they are being transplanted to. Larger trees are harder because of their large root system. Some are impossible if they are too large. They always go into shock for a while, but can bounce back if done correctly... Fruit trees in general do not transplant well from my experience. Palms and cacti are pretty easy as long as the soil is comparable. My main goal would be to re-establish the same biomass of the cleared area if it's unavoidable...to offset the loss...
This is why landscape architects should be a part of the design conversation right from the beginning and not as an afterthought. The relationship of a building to its context is just as important as the design of the building itself.
Johnny Bark protesting "the expansion of high-cost, low-quality mini-mansions"
It depends on a lot of things, but quite often they're not on the survey and are perceived to have little value or be replaceable. I've never seen nursery grown trees to do as well as a field grown trees - too many things go wrong: genetics (nursery trees are too uniform in genetic make up), root bounding (most methods of farming trees cause bent roots or roots wrapping and eventually choking the tree), over reliance on water and fertilizer treatments, etc. Most mature trees can be moved as long as they are not the tap-rooted species, there is a cost, but significantly less than purchasing and installing in-kind.
Not all trees are valuable but an arborist and a landscape architect can help assess if certain trees have a value to the site and what the associated risks in attempting to keep a tree through construction.
Clear cutting and leveling a site makes the construction process easier, and if client and architect allow the schedule and initial construction budget dictate the project that is what will happen.
Looking at the World Trade Center site, you can see even with the kind of care those trees went in, many are struggling now. Most sites have much less maintenance and care after construction.
we don't, an arborist does - besides, where are you getting your wood from, rocks?
can't smoke em if you don't cut em down first.
I thought this was a thread about architects cutting the cheese all the time. My bad.
Can't smoke the salmon without cutting down a cedar.... (just replant so we have a future generation of such trees.
From all the answers I think this is the most accurate, by Leandro Llorente:
"In essence, the act of "building" is destructive to begin with. Architects want to have complete freedom in manicuring a plot."
Even when architects consider planting new trees, they ask the renderer to make them transparent on the renderings. That tells you how little they care about trees.
The most valuable asset in a property are the trees. You can see it clearly here in Long Island. Go to an area where trees are big and old, the properties are priced above 1m. Go to the next village where they got rid of the trees for what ever reason, the properties are half price.
The construction is the same.
Shame on those architects that don't make the most effort to design around the existing nature.
3tk: "It depends on a lot of things, but quite often they're not on the survey and are perceived to have little value or be replaceable."
This is so bad in many ways. I'd say it's a poor job from the surveying company, but also can't the architect go in person and see the lot before they come with bulldozers do destroy nature?
Mr. Pepe, you know very little of architecture.
joseph the skin (that's what "peu" means in french - not what you remember from looney toons which is "pew")
I can't fathom your motives for coming into an architects' forum to spill all that ignorance, maybe you should start by researching who is the biggest killer of trees nowadays - not your 50 yr old maple from your granny's homestead in greenwich, but whole forests wiped out in a day - can you tell me who it is?
I only spec Organic Free Range 2x4s.
Tduds wins the thread. Shut it down.
Nothing looks as forlorn as a new housing development just built on someone's former farm land with a few new scraggly trees and freshly planted shrubs.
"I can't fathom your motives for coming into an architects' forum to spill all that ignorance"
This forum isn't for architects only according to the About section.
What part of what I said is wrong and why?
Please, let's not compare with who kills the most trees.
This is about architects wanting to create. Not design.
When you design, you consider all aspects of the environment where you're creating. Of course it's easier to start with a blank canvas, but architects forget that they are designing for humans who, no matter what, are natural and live in nature.
Mr. Pepe, stop trying to convince us. You're gravely ignorant and choose to paint an entire profession on, probably, one niche event dear to you. Now, perhaps there are some neighborhood kids on your lawn you should go yell at.
+ Tduds
I've been eorking with architects for 15 years. Safdie, Foster, vinoly, jean nouvel, among others.
^very doubtful.
Trees are a renewable resource, by the way. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Human society and clients wants XYZ. That XYZ comes with a cost, not just money but it does come with a cost factor.
As we design and build, those of us who are thinking about environmental impact, we are looking at mitigating the impact. Renewable resources are among those reason for choosing wood. Stone masonry is not renewable. Once you carve it out of the hill, it's a permanent act. It would take a good billion years for new rock material to be formed. When looking to materials to build a building, you need to make a choice at what you use and how much of that material. A factor also needs to consider longevity of your buildings. Buildings that are built to last 100+ years has 3+ lifetimes over buildings built to last 30 years. Building for 30 years and replacing is wasteful. Building for 100+ years minimizes waste. Sure, some parts needs intermittant replacement but overall mass is built to sustain a long term life cycle.
Just so you know, there are tree farms that are explicitly used for harvesting the wood. Practices always involves replacing trees and a harvesting plan that is meant to be sustainable. You take a tree down, you replace it to balance the loss over landscape time. Those who took any landscape architecture course would understand what I am talking about in terms of landscape time. While I am referring from a scientific overlay view, landscape time is a sense of landscape over larger time cycle than the daily life of us. You plant a tree when they are small. You think about tree and spatial arrangement of the tree over its life. That small tree grows. It becomes bigger. So your landscape vision has long term cycle of development. You envision not only the landscape now but also in 10, 20, 30, 50, 100 years from now. It's thinking 4th dimensionally (thinking in terms of passage of time). In the end, it all balances out.
Landscape architects/designers don't just think about how the landscape looks when the architectural project is completed and installed. You're thinking in terms of decades not just in terms of months or a few years. At least a good landscape architect/designer does.
With regards to the comment about architects wanting to create not design, the reality is all creation begins a journey of designing. Whether you convey design in drawings or only keep it in the minds and convey it in the physical work. Designing is the envisioning of what is intended to be created. The reality is, a lot of design ideas never gets built or implemented. It is the reality of the world we live in. It's the reality of being an architect.
I've worked on projects where we've saved every tree we can. It's very hard to do so given regulations. For example when dealing with underground utilities they have to be so far away from trees and roots. Sometimes it's just not feasible.
Noooooooo.
I've been eorking with architects for 15 years. Safdie, Foster, vinoly, jean nouvel, among others.
As the office custodian or receptionist?
(Damnit, I had to break my Rick-embargo. That was too hilarious.)
Mr Pepe Le Peu: You can ask for the trees to be surveyed - and most decent surveyors can ID them as well (so you know which trees are of value), but it's extra money. An arborist is helpful in identifying the overall health of a tree (no point in trying to save one that is on its deathbed). It's not just about what's there, but the quality (and ultimately you need it on a survey to have proper locations). I've had surveys where the canopy was surveyed as well, but not often on smaller budget projects -unless the client specifically asked for it.
Some clients have very specific desires to leave their trees - Tulane and UMass were two I worked with that had arborists put dollar values on each tree. Each project had to replace the dollar value of the trees cut down (or accidentally damaged), the older the tree the more expensive the replacement to the point that it was cost prohibitive (hundreds of dollars for some of the oldest ones).
Josh,
Just so you know, in some countries, I am by definition an architect. In those countries, there isn't the bullshit word game of titles and other like bullshit bureaucracy.
I think we're being too harsh on the OP. The truth is, all of us love trees, but there are many other factors to be considered, the most important ones being constructability, budget and client. Do I want 40% ground coverage for the plot I bought for 12 million $, or 25% and retain a lot of the trees? You tell me.
How are your projects in those countries coming along?
W.I.P.
W.I.P til R.I.P.
ok you're going back on the Do Not Reply list. Ciao!
tduds,
It always is as with all architectural services.
Just so you know, in some countries, I am by definition an architect.
Where is living in your parents' basement and making an ass of yourself on the internet considered architecture?
Like the above? Damn "new rich".
"the most important ones being constructability, budget and client. Do I want 40% ground coverage for the plot I bought for 12 million $, or 25% and retain a lot of the trees? You tell me."
Are those the most important really? It sounds 1950's to me.
I had a client that wanted me to use a sea turtle shell as decoration. Giant piece.
I said NO, it goes against my values to place an exotic dead animal. The guy was fine with it.
The change starts with all of us. If you as an architect cannot protect the environment, we are doomed if we think the government will.
PS: The comments about my career like "As the office custodian or receptionist?" or "^very doubtful." are only making me feel more proud, because I ain't lying, and I smile because obviously you are far from a career like that if it makes you think it's impossible.
As AOR for this amazing project, Chop Stick, by visiondivision: Yes, I am a tree murderer.
My picture didn't show up.
This is the place in google maps: it's hilarious.
http://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.7797541,-73.5891711/40.7797541,-73.5891711/@40.7779545,-73.5879899,733m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
I'd pay money to watch a Le Peu v. Balkins death match.
Should we vacate the thread and let the two of them have at it?
Hold on tduds, let me grab a few brews and then the death-match can start.
Mr. Pepe, how are those blinders? tight enough? Perhaps you're not lying since in your limited experience, it's all you tend to see, but you sure as fuck are not correct.
W.I.P.
Work? Or T.I.P. - talk in progress?
Proverbs 14:23 - In all toil there is profit, but mere talk tends only to poverty.
Balk-ins Progress.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.