Wait. Did Alpharetta City Council just approve a change in the tree save plan for Alpharetta's new "new" City Center plan? Did City Council just decide to take out 65 trees in the new "new" City Center plan and only leave 15 trees - a change from the original plan? Did this get any ahead of time mention before last Monday's Council meeting? You mean to tell me those beautiful old oaks and other trees will be chopped down?
If this is true - and I'm waiting for someone to tell me this isn't true - then what is it about trees that this Council seems to hate so much? Why is our City Council anti-tree? Or, should I ask, is this relatively young City Council all about rushing into new development at any price - even if it has no regard for our ordinances, plain common sense and tasteful aesthetics?
There is a great blog on the Next American City website called "Planting Trees Is Like Not Eating a Marshmallow". The point the writer is trying to make is that, unlike beautiful buildings or sculpture or hardscape features that can look stunningly beautiful when new, trees are an exception to the "new" rule. They actually are more beautiful when they are mature. And hey - guess what - you cannot plant a mature tree. All those trees that they will be planting at the new "new" City Center, I don't care if they are maples or common crape myrtles - they will be young and transplantable, probably ordinary, servicable, plain- not mature and majestic. To sacrifice the mature, majestic trees that are already in place and that have been hard at work establishing themselves for decades now, is to waste money and beauty and throw ridicule at the effort of time. It is folly, wasteful, arrogant.
You simply cannot replace the inexpressible something of a mature and majestic tree that has been hard at work growing for 50-80 years with a puny stick from a local nursery. It's not the same thing. And it shows great disrespect for history.
To all, your thoughts and opinions matter a great deal to me. We are working to preserve as many trees as possible and still accomplish a vibrant Downtown. Frankly, it probably won't be enough to make everyone happy. I would note that the sketch for the bond would have required the removal of nearly the same number of trees (a number which I do not believe has been actually established), as the garage next to Publix is the primary offender. I'm here to serve, and I would be happy to speak to anyone on this, or any other items. My cell phone is 404-310-1336. We will also be having a town hall meeting soon (details to follow), and I would love for you to come and be heard.
2. There were architectural options that avoided placement of buildings such that Brooke Street Park could be fully preserved, but the subteam (Belle Isle, Owens, Mitchell) obviously did not place tree preservation as a priority because those options were rejected. 3. I am thankful for Travis and Lee's comments that show concern in much the same way that out-of-city campaign contributions were appreciated. 4. It is good that there will be further discussion on this issue but really, it should never have gotten to this. This all happened because a subset of Council was allowed to make decisions as a body unto themselves in secrecy. There was a push to get this done in 3 days, remember????? We only got the hearing on the 18th because of concerned citizens questioning the "rush." 5. I want someone to prove to me that all those Brooke Street Park trees *must* be removed in order for downtown to be profitable. And explain why this wasn't fully articulated before the bond vote. This is bait-and-switch!
"Hey! I just grow here... my leaves are shady...but so's the council...so save me maybe..."
Wave buh-bye. Signed, Chainsaw
The current design plan is too compromised at this point. Areas are too boxed in and sectioned off. The parking, delivery and tree preservation are too compromised. It may cost us now to redesign this plan BUT saves our city and reflects our priorities. Who agrees with me ? What can we do to change this current design?
Rearranging the design so that City Hall is moved into a portion of the Brooke Street Park area likely only displaces three additional trees. Shifting the parking garage (by pivoting it so that it's on an angle and a bit closer to Publix) probably displaces seven additional trees. As such, it appears as though the difference between the concept drawing and the actual, professionally prepared plan is 10 trees - not 65. Please keep in mind the concept drawing presented to the voters and approved overwhelmingly clearly contemplated the parking garage in almost the identical area where the parking garage is now located. This is what will cause many trees to be removed.
The real issue is not the number of trees. It is that you sold us a plan that you aren't honoring. Move City Hall out of the park! Or cancel the bonds so that our taxes can be lowered. It's bad enough that you all approved 4-story buildings towering over the park space. At least if there were mature trees to buffer it, it would not be such an eyesore. Also what about the handicapped parking spaces and the service areas for City Hall. How many additional trees will that take?
http://www.austinpost.org/boom-town/city-ignores-own-heritage-tree-ordinance-sets-bad-precedent
With regard to the incorporation of a community garden in the city center, I do not recall that element being discussed at any of the public meetings. I do not believe that the community gardens would be appropriate in that setting. If there is a demand for more space then expand the program at Wills Park. I also do not believe that there are going to be 65 SPECIMEN trees removed for the project. If that is the case we might want to redefine the definition of specimen trees.