Cathedral Sq. Trees to be cut down by City Council

Dunmoreroader

I was horrified to hear of the City Council's plans to get rid of all the trees in Cathedral Square as part of a new development plan for the area. I have applauded much of the investment by the council in recent years to make the city centre attractive for tourists; Viking Triangle etc. but my support stops at cutting down trees to make room for more tents during Winterval or some such.
Go to any popular European city and you will see thousands of trees everywhere. Here, they seem to be viewed as a nuisance that need costly maintenance. I've been told they are only 10 years old but that doesn't devalue them. That just means the council had more vision a decade ago than the current lot.
It's great that money is being spent in Cathedral Square to make it attractive. I always thought all the boarded up houses would make great cafe's, restaurant's or bars with awnings so you could sit outside during the summer, listen to music or watch street entertainers against the backdrop of the Cathedral and the lovely trees in full bloom.
This has been voted in by the Councillors too, so it's not just the officials to blame. They should be planting hundreds of trees along all the main streets & squares, not cutting down the few left. They claim they consulted widely but I only read about it after they had voted on it.
Surely, I'm not the only one against this??

O Riain

Dunmoreroader wrote: »

I was horrified to hear of the City Council's plans to get rid of all the trees in Cathedral Square as part of a new development plan for the area. I have applauded much of the investment by the council in recent years to make the city centre attractive for tourists; Viking Triangle etc. but my support stops at cutting down trees to make room for more tents during Winterval or some such.
Go to any popular European city and you will see thousands of trees everywhere. Here, they seem to be viewed as a nuisance that need costly maintenance. I've been told they are only 10 years old but that doesn't devalue them. That just means the council had more vision a decade ago than the current lot.
It's great that money is being spent in Cathedral Square to make it attractive. I always thought all the boarded up houses would make great cafe's, restaurant's or bars with awnings so you could sit outside during the summer, listen to music or watch street entertainers against the backdrop of the Cathedral and the lovely trees in full bloom.
This has been voted in by the Councillors too, so it's not just the officials to blame. They should be planting hundreds of trees along all the main streets & squares, not cutting down the few left. They claim they consulted widely but I only read about it after they had voted on it.
Surely, I'm not the only one against this??

Residents were consulted through the whole process and let me say I agree with them being cut down for the simple reason they are too big! The square is narrow enough with large buildings on all sides and with the trees there a large amount of sunlight was blocked out in addition to the roots causing problems with the paving. As far as I am aware they are to be replaced with smaller trees that hopefully lead to a more open, brighter square that will allow itself to become the wonderful public anemity it really can be. Those trees are well over 15 years of age aswell by the way, would have been nice to see them moved but I think they may be diseased.

fricatus

Dunmoreroader wrote: »

I was horrified to hear of the City Council's plans to get rid of all the trees in Cathedral Square as part of a new development plan for the area...

I guess I was horrified when I first heard it too, but I'm thinking back to when there were loads of cherry trees down along the Mall and outside the Tower Hotel, and the City Council decided to remove them. I was likewise horrified.

However they replaced them with London Plane trees, which are apparently much better suited to urban environments, and I must say what's there looks good now IMO.

I can understand your reaction, but maybe they do actually know what they're doing.

wellboytoo

I agree they are way too big and more suitable urban trees would be much more suitable for this small area.

mike65

They are planting semi mature trees as replacements. I think. Or is that on the inner relief road where a bunch of trees were cut down due to damage or sight lines? Maybe its both.

Dunmoreroader

I hope you are right, but I don't remember reading that they were replacing them with new trees. I hope it's not with more of those planters situated in Barronstrand St.
The trees that are left are on the Cathedral side of the square so I don't see how they are affecting the light for residents but I'll hold judgement if you're all saying it has been though through properly.
I'd still prefer more trees over street furniture and 'installations'!:)

mccarthy37

O Riain wrote: »

Residents were consulted through the whole process and let me say I agree with them being cut down for the simple reason they are too big! The square is narrow enough with large buildings on all sides and with the trees there a large amount of sunlight was blocked out in addition to the roots causing problems with the paving. As far as I am aware they are to be replaced with smaller trees that hopefully lead to a more open, brighter square that will allow itself to become the wonderful public anemity it really can be. Those trees are well over 15 years of age aswell by the way, would have been nice to see them moved but I think they may be diseased.

Any good gardener will tell you if you plant a tree that grows to large for the area it was planted in its called bad planning. You could always keep them pruned.

O Riain

mccarthy37 wrote: »

Any good gardener will tell you if you plant a tree that grows to large for the area it was planted in its called bad planning. You could always keep them pruned.

Course it was bad planning, I never said otherwise. They use to prune them every so often, dunno how much they do now(that theyre gone) but theres only so much you can prune huge trees like that before they start looking ridiculous.

As for the light issue, it wasnt that it was ever dark for residents or in the square but it could have been brighter, a more open square will mean it can be used better in future. As a matter of interest has someone got a picture of the plans for the square?

jad2007

There was various issues with the trees, light, disease and damage being caused to buildings by the roots. Basically they are to big for the location. This was all discussed by City Council and a decision made. Im sure if you ring they will tell you all about it.

decies

Those an taisce nutters will have a heart attack they have being known to cry if you touch a tree , go into meltdown if you actually cut one down . If causing problems they have to go.

Max Powers

horrified? with the terrible situation the country is in, cutting down a few too large for area trees causes horror. Those trees are too big for area, you couldnt see museum or the deanery with them.

Dunmoreroader

Ok, maybe horrified was a bit strong but there seems to be a lot of "not seeing the wood from the trees" going on here don't mind the Deanery. All i've heard in response is they're too big, block light, get diseased, roots damage footpaths etc. etc.
Jesus wept, lets get some Agent Orange and take'm all out. A city with lots of trees lbettethan one without. And no, I'm not a) in An Taisce b) a Hippy c) a Green (tree-hugger).
Yes trees need maintenance but so what, aren't they worth it? London, Paris, Rome think sobut what do they know about making the most of their city centre's to attract tourists and citizens alike, right?

wellboytoo

Dunmoreroader wrote: »

Ok, maybe horrified was a bit strong but there seems to be a lot of "not seeing the wood from the trees" going on here don't mind the Deanery. All i've heard in response is they're too big, block light, get diseased, roots damage footpaths etc. etc.
Jesus wept, lets get some Agent Orange and take'm all out. A city with lots of trees lbettethan one without. And no, I'm not a) in An Taisce b) a Hippy c) a Green (tree-hugger).
Yes trees need maintenance but so what, aren't they worth it? London, Paris, Rome think sobut what do they know about making the most of their city centre's to attract tourists and citizens alike, right?

I think you misunderstand our reaction, I love my garden but a shrub or a tree in the wrong place is a weed.
Waterford City Council only employed a horticultural type individual in recent years so a lot of mistakes were made in planting in the 60's 70 and 80 's so now they are fixing it, sometimes you must be hard for the big picture.

Dunmoreroader

Great, that would imply a masterplan for tree planting all over the city. Is it included in the city development plan? If so, great but I have my doubts, it smacks of the usual short-term thinking.
Would love to be proved wrong.

Kracken

I hope the council have taken into account for trees that size the roots could extend into the foundations of building all around. When the trees are gone they will either be pulled up and case damage or they will rot and cause damage...

Either way there is the potential for further cost down the line.

Cabaal

Kracken wrote: »

I hope the council have taken into account for trees that size the roots could extend into the foundations of building all around. When the trees are gone they will either be pulled up and case damage or they will rot and cause damage...

Either way there is the potential for further cost down the line.

True, but if they leave them they'll cause even more damage then if they rot (its extremely unlikely they council would look to remove them all)

Psychedelic

Dunmoreroader wrote: »

Great, that would imply a masterplan for tree planting all over the city. Is it included in the city development plan? If so, great but I have my doubts, it smacks of the usual short-term thinking.
Would love to be proved wrong.

They actually do have a masterplan specifically for trees:
http://www.waterfordcity.ie/documents/reports/DraftTreeManagementPolicyApril2009.pdf

Kracken

Cabaal wrote: »

True, but if they leave them they'll cause even more damage then if they rot (its extremely unlikely they council would look to remove them all)

That's fair enough, but it should be the only option; as their action plan outlines why not use "Crown thinning" and also determining the overall overall health of the tree first.

I'm not a tree hugger, but these trees in particular have some historical value, why not treat them with such value.

wellboytoo

Kracken wrote: »

That's fair enough, but it should be the only option; as their action plan outlines why not use "Crown thinning" and also determining the overall overall health of the tree first.

I'm not a tree hugger, but these trees in particular have some historical value, why not treat them with such value.

The trees in Cathedral square are less than twenty five years old! hardly historical