UKTC Archive

RE: Trees and Speed

Subject: RE: Trees and Speed
From: Ian May
Date: Dec 04 2000 18:43:15
Tony .....
Well said.
The right to one's own space is a basic need of humanity, but while this may
be considered personally essential, do we value that need in others ?  Our
"planners", perhaps would rather stack everyone up, in order to protect
amenity open space, just so long as they didn't have to live in the stack
themselves selves. We are all guilty of this "Englishman's Castle" culture,
so in order to understand the mentality of those in modern slums, we cannot
simply dismiss the "Acts of mindless vandalism" that leave their streets
treeless.
Consider the following;
Only once we have achieved our own space, may we then feel inclined to share
it with others (or trees).

If we intend to plant trees as environmental improvement, we must consider
the location of each tree, and it's potentially negative impact on the
quality of life of it's closest human neighbours within their spatial
sovereignty. Fewer trees will be planted, but those trees are less likely to
succumb to vandalism and may even become subject to local pride, and so
attract a measure of protection.  The street takes on colour and life force,
driven by pride, litter is replaced by window boxes, and speeds come down
because people care (depressed areas can be intimidating to motorists, and
this can be a speed factor).  Trees are not simply a part of that, they are
the catalytic corner stone .

While we consider the bottom of Maslows Pyramid , local authorities under
Best Value,  look for "quick fix" ways to improve the quality of life
particularly for depressed communities but that should not be at the expense
of the individual.

Sorry to ramble
Regards to all
Ian 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Ash [SMTP:Tony.Ash@xxxxxxx.gov.uk]
Sent: 04 December 2000 08:43
To:   UK Tree Care
Subject:      RE: Trees and Speed

Chris wrote
<<Something about chickens and eggs comes to mind here. Trees in cities,
in this one any way, tend to be more prevalent in more affluent, low
density areas. Where there is cheap, high density housing there is
little room for trees.>>
Very true, Chris.  It shows how much consideration was given to people
during the sixties slum clearance programmes, replacing them(slums) with
even higher density housing.  Cram them all in and you will get more
problems.  Seems so obvious to most people as a gut reaction without
having
to embark on endless research.  The object lesson for planners is create
housing where there is enough room for trees to be planted and grow to
their
full potential.  
 Regards 
Tony 



**********************************************************************
Important:
This e-mail is intended for the above named person only and should be
treated as confidential. If this has come to you in error you should take
no action based on it, nor should you copy or show it to anyone; 
please telephone us immediately.
**********************************************************************

The UK Tree Care mailing list - http://uktc.oak-wood.co.uk/
To unsubscribe send mailto:unsubscribe-uktc@xxxxxxxxx.co.uk


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************

The UK Tree Care mailing list - http://uktc.oak-wood.co.uk/
To unsubscribe send mailto:unsubscribe-uktc@xxxxxxxxx.co.uk