New tree grates/infrastructure

[jallan71]

I'm sure there must be a thread about this already, but I hunted and couldn't find one... So here's a fresh one: mods, please move if/as necessary.

At any rate, the city is currently re-paving sidewalks at Yonge/Carlton and they have FINALLY moved to a new form of sidewalk grate for the new trees. See below for pics. (Btw, these may be the same as the grates/coverings that were installed on Richmond earlier this year.)

I don't recall there being trees on this stretch of Yonge before (east side, directly north of Carlton) so this is definitely a good thing just in terms of new plantings - but this also seems to be a new/improved kind of grate for trees, which would be a VERY good thing if it's a new standard that's been adopted by the city. I know that many have complained in the past about the concrete tree-coverings that have served more to stifle and strangle the trees more than to protect them. This new grate looks like it will serve to protect while also letting the trees soak up more water.

So, does anybody know if this is a new standard for the city? Should we expect to see more of these? And if so, is it just for new plantings or will the city actually start replacing some of the concrete-slab grates as well?

 

[DSCToronto]

Take a look At the City's (comparatively) new Streetscape Manual under Trees. This does say that metal grates are OK and some are also being installed on Gould/Victoria this week. The Manual is a great resorce: http://www.toronto.ca/planning/urbdesign/streetscape/index.htm

 

[jallan71]

Thanks DSC - I had a quick look at the manual and you're right that the metal grates are now an approved alternate option -- so long as the design is approved by the city, etc etc. And that's definitely a big move in the right direction.

That being said, according to page 5 of the "Toronto Street Trees - Guide to Standard Planting Options" document, it seems that the concrete tree cover is still the standard. Ah well. I wonder how the decision to implement the metal-grate-alternate options gets made?

At any rate, I hope we see more of the grates from now on... And I hope that they help the survival rate for new street trees. They're such an important resource, and they're not cheap!

- J.

 

[gweed123]

Definitely an improvement in my mind. I never really thought the permeability of those concrete tree covers was very good, even with the little holes in them. The holes don't help very much when the cover slopes out and away from the holes and away from the centre.

Ottawa has a bunch of these types of grates, only they're round. I like the square look though, looks good.

 

[snyberTO]

So glad to see sidewalk improvements around Yonge and College - it had too many and sloppy patch jobs. The new tree grates are good, but the parallel metal grate surface look to be spaced perfectly for collecting cigarette butts. They just land in there and get stuck. oh well. Also wish they had given the trees a bit more root-room.

Personally, i like the concrete ones on College (down by MaRS) that are coupled with the paver strip that helps mark the edge of the sidewalk - i think that little lip that sticks up around the tree trunk was designed to help keep excessive salt from reaching the soil - and the tiny holes to allow oxygen to reach the soil. But the trees suffer though because of a lack of water. its always something!

Does anyone know if they plan to fix up the sidewalks on College from Yonge to Bay? They're working on something over there but it might just be utilities. The sidewalks and trees are really in tough shape there - the trees growing out of muddy littered pits haphazardly covered in paving stones. It drives me crazy when is see paving stone surfaces patched with asphalt - College and Bay is a bad example of this.

 

[drum118]

If you look on Roncesvalles, you will find one with a tree protection for it.
June 30

This was at the Home Hardware Store.

 

[bar1967]

Is that a pile of barf beside the pools?

 

[all2]

I've been wondering about the street trees too. Over the last year I noticed that the city has pulled up quite a few of those concrete tree pit collars and replaced them with either mulch, this strange rubber matting (in front of the much music building) and even astroturf (Edward street next to the Atrium on Bay) . Is the forestry department testing out new solutions to their horrible street tree mortality rate?

 

[nfitz]

If the forestry department wants to deal with tree mortality, they should start selecting trees primarily on hardiness in urban settings, rather than trying to stick to local varieties that can't handle the pollution and stress of being in restricted areas.

More Norway Maples and less Mountain Ashes.

 

[jje1000]

Norway Maples suck as street trees. They grow low and wide, and their canopies let in little light.

 

[nfitz]

Norway Maples suck as street trees. They grow low and wide, and their canopies let in little light.

They grow quite high ... at least in my neighbourhood ... they seem to love the sandy soil. And they are great, with their wide canopies letting in little light. Wonderful summertime shade!

 

[k10ery]

Norway Maple is a freaking weed. I pull at least a hundred seedlings from my garden every year. Even better, the established ones kill off native plants growing underneath.

 

[all2]

The city has stopped planting Ash trees because of the infestation of the Ash borer insect from china that has killed off a lot of the Ash population in the city's north east. They expect all of the city's ash trees to be dead in a couple of years.

the city has also been starting to plant more southern, (ie more heat and stress tolerant) trees such as kentucky coffee and ginko. but i think the biggest problem in toronto is the amount of salt used in the winter basically poisoning the soil.

 

[Northern Light]

This is my bailiwick.

Norway Maples are a non-native, invasive species that the City pays to remove from ravines/valleys because they over-run oaks and sugar maples and other natives.

They have no local predator (animal that likes to eat the leaves/seedlings/bark) and are salt-tolerant, which is why the City starting planting them as street trees many decades ago. It was only in the last decade or so they realized what a problem they had created.

There are many ways to extend the life of street trees, irrespective of species; and many native species that can/will deal w/urban conditions.

Trees that cant' handle road salt or car exhaust well at all, include White Birch and Sugar Maple.

Trees that manage fairly well include Ash (give or take an invading insect infestation); Silver Maple, Honey Locust, and actually Oaks do quite well, IF they have enough room and aren't totally over done by salt (particularly in their early years).

Basswoods don't too bad either; and except for the other issues around conifer planting, White Spruce is quite happy to put up a lot of crap from urban spaces.

****

The biggest issues w/street trees are the terrible planting conditions; and a failure to use a mix of species in every location.

On that latter point, I cringe at the new Bloor Street for going 100% London Plane. If a tree disease or infestation ever goes after that species, there could be a devastating impact on the streetscape. As a rule of thumb, I would say no more than 20% of trees on any street should be the same species. This ensures a healthy streetscape even if one species faces a terrible year/years. It also reduces the spread of disease/infestation.

****

On planters, there are 2 key issues, enough water, and enough room for the roots.

Providing that the new paving stones are permeable (sand between them) then w/larger, grated pits, the trees should do much better on Roncy.

However, the best design, where room allows is still what you see on St. George.

Open soil, 1.5M wide, 3M long planters w/2 or 3 trees each.

But obviously that can't be done on every street, and this looks like a good compromise.

 

[snyberTO]

.

On that latter point, I cringe at the new Bloor Street for going 100% London Plane. If a tree disease or infestation ever goes after that species, there could be a devastating impact on the streetscape. As a rule of thumb, I would say no more than 20% of trees on any street should be the same species.
.

I understand your argument, but single species plantings take advantage of architectural qualities of trees and can be an important part of place making. I know there are risks but imagine Central park without the singular use of elms or the Champs-Elysées without the qualities of london planes... A mix of trees is logical, but single species can create fantastic environments...