Why cities need trees

Press, 25 February 1985, Page 8

Why cities need trees

This is the second in a series o£ six fortnightly articles, written in response to the “Year for Urban Trees” to promote greater public awareness of the need to protect trees in urban areas. The articles are contributed by members of the Canterbury Landscape Group. This week JENNIFER ROY, a landscape architect with the Waimairi District Council, looks at attitudes to trees in the urban environment.

wnat is neeaea is a new breed of tree. From public comments, we can piece together the ideal urban tree: one that doesn’t drop leaves, that doesn’t have seeds that fly about everywhere or fruit that falls and makes a mess underfoot, that doesn’t have roots that come up through footpaths or invade other people’s gardens or drains, that gives shelter but doesn’t keep out the sunshine, and doesn’t shed twigs or branches even in the fiercest Canterbury nor’wester. This tree should be about 2.5 m tall, no more, with a single trunk from which branches spread in gently curving arcs, but not dropping too low, otherwise traffic and pedestrians will be obstructed. Preferably, too, the branches should display permanent masses of nonfading soft pink blossom, along with a brilliant show of autumn colours. The ideal tree for the urban environment may well be made of plastic, manufactured by human technology for an environment dominated by human technology. Yet, if we saw these plastic products, their perfect deception would last only until we touched them; the knowledge that they were not “real” would immediately set them apart from real trees, and their shape and colours would be no more than decoration. I am sure that those qualities that are present in the live plant and absent in the plastic replica are the reasons we need to have trees in our environment. Qualities such as growth, the scents of leaves and flowers, changes in response to the seasons, and the fact that a tree is a living thing, dependent on and responsive to its environment, are all part of our aesthe-

tic response to trees and appeal to something inside us that is not satisfied by the plastic replica. We have a psychological need for contact with nature — a desire to keep in touch with that world where beauty and harmony are a result of the natural order, where we can recover our place in the natural order and feel integrated with the universe.

Nature symbol The tree in the urban environment fills an important role. It is our contact with nature. The urban tree symbolises the wider natural landscape and connects us with the trees and forests, rolling landforms, rivers and streams of the landscape that exists outside the urban environment. The recent increase in interest in growing native trees and shrubs in home gardens parallels our growing awareness of our identity as New Zealanders. Recognition of the aesthetic and cultural value of our native plants means that the rimu, kowhai, and native beech take their place beside the camellias and rhododendrons and also serve as a reminder of the native bush we visit on our holidays in the more remote places of our land. Conflict Most people agree that life in the city is made more pleasurable by the presence of trees. Public surveys tell us that people prefer to look at an urban view that includes trees rather than one that has none. An aspect of this is reflected in the increased property values of those residential areas where mature trees make an important contribution to the character of the area. Unfortunately, though,

attitudes to trees in the urban environment are ambivalent. While their aesthetic value is recognised, there is also a conflicting attitude sometimes prevalent that trees in the city will become a nuisance if they are not “controlled.” This attitude results in the complaint that a tree is “too tall,” “out of hand” or “had its day.” By what criteria do we make these judgments? This desire to control nature must surely be the remnant of the pioneering attitude that nature was to be tamed, the native bush to be “brought under control,” and man’s order imposed on the wild landscape. I am convinced that this attitude is the source of that sad annual crop of mangled and maimed specimens that are deprived of an opportunity to grow to mature beauty in our urban landscape. Living in harmony It is to be hoped that this attitude will be outgrown as people become aware that it is not only possible but desirable and advantageous to live in harmony with trees in our

One is encouraged to see new buildings in the city sensitively designed to use existing trees on the site, trees recognised as valuable features of the development rather than impediments to be re-

moved. This attitude indicates a welcome move towards integrating urban development and environmental values. It is a move in a positive direction towards a mature recognition and acceptance of the value of nature in our cities.