The reason why is that once a tree goes in, it can’t be removed for any reason, more or less.
So what’s the point of the situation you can see here, what’s the point of having these trees in the middle of a sidewalk?
Mind your head, as trees are more important than people, apparently:
Click to expand
San Francisco has too many trees on sidewalks.
We should take some of them out…
Tags: 2011, bay area, california, removal, San Francisco, sidewalk, tree, trees
Pure insanity. Trees exhale oxygen. I leave it to you to figure out the rest.
You know, finding out about the carbon cycle just blew me away when I was like six years old. But that was a long time ago.
It’s the fact that they., effectively, never can come out is the primary reason why more shouldn’t go in.
But I’m not an exTREEmist, so of course I disagree with you…
That picture is taken from Daniel Burnham Court, where I used to live. I recognize that street anywhere.
The picture is misleading, as Daniel Burnham Court is a tiny residential alley, not a busy street, where the sidewalk space is more than adequate for the minimal amount of foot traffic it receives.
The trees contribute greatly to making that building appear more residential, a necessity considering its central location.
I agree it’s not a busy street.
The sidewalk is useless.
Those trees are useless, IMO. It’s like they were sprinkled on the model and then they came to life.
Yes, those might be useless but taking that supposition and concluding there are too many sidewalk trees in SF. Weak at best. Would like some photos of blocks that could sorely use some trees?
I suspect this sounded like a good idea for blog late at night stumbling down Daniel Burnham.
Can we get rid of these trees then? Not likely.
Trees = aesthetics. If you want to plant some, I don’t care as long as they don’t get in the way or impinge upon people.
9PM, not stumbling, heading uphill