Just received an email suggesting that these trees should be retained and urging me to attend a peaceful protest.

After looking here at the arborists’ reports, there seems to be a discrepancy between the two.

I do like trees, lots of them, and believe that they should be preserved where-ever possible, but I’m not so sure that these should be. Unfortunately, they are in a bad location, having been built out over the years and IMHO they are dangerous.

Anyone with some knowledge about trees care to comment?

Can’t say I’m an expert, but I have some experience. Never really paid too much attention to it before but we have some trees of similar variety on the other side of the street at work, directly visible from my office window. A number of times over the years I’ve worked there branches have simply fallen off and come crashing down. More than once I’ve been out there clearing them off the road. The council have trimmed a number of times, but it doesn’t seem to help. I think they need to be gotten rid of and something else planted in their place.

Speedy said:

Just received an email suggesting that these trees should be retained and urging me to attend a peaceful protest.

After looking here at the arborists’ reports, there seems to be a discrepancy between the two.

I do like trees, lots of them, and believe that they should be preserved where-ever possible, but I’m not so sure that these should be. Unfortunately, they are in a bad location, having been built out over the years and IMHO they are dangerous.

Anyone with some knowledge about trees care to comment?

Apparently all mature eucalypts are hazardous.

Big trees in built-up areas ought to be welcome as long as they’re not in a state of dangerous decay. The arborist’s report concludes that these ones are unsafe and need to go.

The very old, unsafe pines around our village’s convict-built bridge were lopped recently, but the remaining bits of trunk were carved into various locally relevant designs:

Bubblecar said:

Big trees in built-up areas ought to be welcome as long as they’re not in a state of dangerous decay. The arborist’s report concludes that these ones are unsafe and need to go.

I had a big tree reduced by half. It was healthy and safe but I was sick of worrying about it falling into my lounge everytime there was a heavy wind and rain. Being a gum tree it is now growing nice and bushy and if it gets blown over wont damage anything.

AwesomeO said:

Bubblecar said:

Big trees in built-up areas ought to be welcome as long as they’re not in a state of dangerous decay. The arborist’s report concludes that these ones are unsafe and need to go.

I had a big tree reduced by half. It was healthy and safe but I was sick of worrying about it falling into my lounge everytime there was a heavy wind and rain. Being a gum tree it is now growing nice and bushy and if it gets blown over wont damage anything.

Yes, I had the same except the tree was Council’s tree. They turned it into a habitat tree, removing the canopy without reducing much of its height. It has resprouted, but Council staff assured me that it will eventually die from the pruning. This one had bracket fungus growing on it, hence my alerting Council to it in the first place. Would have been interesting to see ultrasound results on it.

I have seen similar stuff go on around here – Residents who deny all logic and evidence to retain a feature they regard as desirable. The most memorable case was the White Cypress tree that lined the main street of Portsea. Even 50 years past their safe life, even in the face of evidence that they were very likely to kill people, some of the locals still tried everything (short of putting themselves in harms way) to stop the local shire from cutting them down – Which had the effect of wasting millions of dollars of municipal funds, but made no difference.

First and foremost, The trees look OK in the image. The problem clearly is that people decided to make the home of the trees their place and paved it over after buildings were erected. The trees aren’t unsafe, the buildings and their principles are.

An old warning or a couple; never camp in a dry creek bed and never camp under a gum tree, seem to usually be ignored by almost all Australians.

I thought it odd that the birds that may be nesting in it should be cared for yet no description of how that could be done was presented and there was clearly no thought that anything else may be living in the trees which by the way is erroneous as every tree is a city of life.

Lopping a eucalypt may or may not be a death sentence from the actual lopping but it most certainly will make the tree far more dangerous than it was before it was lopped. Whatever may be thought about lopping trees, it should be realised that any new branches that grow after lopping will only be attached by the bark. Thus they will be far more prone to fall off than the original branches.

Planting the new trees under the paving is as much a death sentence as paving under the original trees. Buildings and trees never get along well for very long.

Now to quell some myths. Not all Eucalyptus species are prone to breakage of limbs. Sydney Blue gums aren’t the best tree to grow under paving that is local to the area. Angophera are far more suitable and less prone to drop branches

roughbarked said:

Planting the new trees under the paving is as much a death sentence as paving under the original trees. Buildings and trees never get along well for very long.

I always believed that if a tree is planted in a particular suitable location, and provided there is no major change to conditions eg. sunlight/drainage, it will grow only to a size that can be sustained.

roughbarked said:

Now to quell some myths. Not all Eucalyptus species are prone to breakage of limbs. Sydney Blue gums aren’t the best tree to grow under paving that is local to the area. Angophera are far more suitable and less prone to drop branches

Angophoras are beautiful trees. I do wonder what Hornsby Council plan to replace these Blue Gums with.

Speedy said:

I always believed that if a tree is planted in a particular suitable location, and provided there is no major change to conditions eg. sunlight/drainage, it will grow only to a size that can be sustained.

Nature believes otherwise.

that looks like bamboo which is a grass not a tree.

;-)

ChrispenEvan said:

that looks like bamboo which is a grass not a tree.

;-)

Ever the scientist I see.

ChrispenEvan said:

that looks like bamboo which is a grass not a tree.

;-)

Yes! But I would think that prior to busting out of the pot, its roots were already in the ground underneath. Doesn’t count, I’m afraid :)

Speedy said:

roughbarked said:

Planting the new trees under the paving is as much a death sentence as paving under the original trees. Buildings and trees never get along well for very long.

I always believed that if a tree is planted in a particular suitable location, and provided there is no major change to conditions eg. sunlight/drainage, it will grow only to a size that can be sustained.

roughbarked said:

Now to quell some myths. Not all Eucalyptus species are prone to breakage of limbs. Sydney Blue gums aren’t the best tree to grow under paving that is local to the area. Angophera are far more suitable and less prone to drop branches

Angophoras are beautiful trees. I do wonder what Hornsby Council plan to replace these Blue Gums with.

oops spelling error.. Angophora.. yay.

Yes well, Hornsby council like any other, could always do with someone who at least knows what to do. Even if they have to get someone else to spell it. However if they’d had the knowledge ll along, they woukld have built the buildings around the existing Angophoroa species, Banksia species and etc. Blue Gums need their own space.

Speedy said:

ChrispenEvan said:

that looks like bamboo which is a grass not a tree.

;-)

Yes! But I would think that prior to busting out of the pot, its roots were already in the ground underneath. Doesn’t count, I’m afraid :)

He had a simple point which is valid. That other people need to step around it is neither here nor there.

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Nature believes otherwise.

Big trees like the Sydney Blue Gum need plenty of water in order to grow and do well, which is one of the reasons they seek out moist places like under pavers and in water pipes. What is needed are some of the smaller dry country trees of which there are quite a number.

PermeateFree said:

Big trees like the Sydney Blue Gum need plenty of water in order to grow and do well, which is one of the reasons they seek out moist places like under pavers and in water pipes. What is needed are some of the smaller dry country trees of which there are quite a number.

Yes, well. City planners grab trees from all over the world for things like size and shape, without much attention to suitability for the conditions present.

roughbarked said:

Yes well, Hornsby council like any other, could always do with someone who at least knows what to do. Even if they have to get someone else to spell it. However if they’d had the knowledge ll along, they woukld have built the buildings around the existing Angophoroa species, Banksia species and etc. Blue Gums need their own space.

Well I do think they had the knowledge all along. There is a train station within 50m of these trees and it should have been expected that, with the development that is inevitable around train stations, these trees could not be kept in the long term.

PermeateFree said:

Big trees like the Sydney Blue Gum need plenty of water in order to grow and do well, which is one of the reasons they seek out moist places like under pavers and in water pipes. What is needed are some of the smaller dry country trees of which there are quite a number.

Yes, a few Salmon Gums would do the job nicely.

Speedy said:

roughbarked said:

Yes well, Hornsby council like any other, could always do with someone who at least knows what to do. Even if they have to get someone else to spell it. However if they’d had the knowledge ll along, they woukld have built the buildings around the existing Angophoroa species, Banksia species and etc. Blue Gums need their own space.

Well I do think they had the knowledge all along. There is a train station within 50m of these trees and it should have been expected that, with the development that is inevitable around train stations, these trees could not be kept in the long term.

Yes. If Blue Gums need to be saved, they need to be saved in their own environment. we do need to realise that the earth is about all of us.

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

Big trees like the Sydney Blue Gum need plenty of water in order to grow and do well, which is one of the reasons they seek out moist places like under pavers and in water pipes. What is needed are some of the smaller dry country trees of which there are quite a number.

Yes, a few Salmon Gums would do the job nicely.

Wouldn’t grow there.

roughbarked said:

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

Big trees like the Sydney Blue Gum need plenty of water in order to grow and do well, which is one of the reasons they seek out moist places like under pavers and in water pipes. What is needed are some of the smaller dry country trees of which there are quite a number.

Yes, a few Salmon Gums would do the job nicely.

Wouldn’t grow there.

Part of this story is about the will of the tree itself.

or if it isn’t then semantics aside.. others should be able to see this.

roughbarked said:

Speedy said:

ChrispenEvan said:

that looks like bamboo which is a grass not a tree.

;-)

Yes! But I would think that prior to busting out of the pot, its roots were already in the ground underneath. Doesn’t count, I’m afraid :)

He had a simple point which is valid. That other people need to step around it is neither here nor there.

RB, I don’t think I understand what you mean.

I don’t agree that a plant in a pot with a hole in the bottom can be compared to a plant, any plant, in the ground.

Speedy said:

roughbarked said:

Speedy said:

Yes! But I would think that prior to busting out of the pot, its roots were already in the ground underneath. Doesn’t count, I’m afraid :)

He had a simple point which is valid. That other people need to step around it is neither here nor there.

RB, I don’t think I understand what you mean.

I don’t agree that a plant in a pot with a hole in the bottom can be compared to a plant, any plant, in the ground.

The hole in the bottom leads the way to the ground. Try to pick up any successful plant in a pot.

RB, I don’t think I understand what you mean.
==========

That’s ok. I’m sure he doesn’t either most of the time.

jjjust moi said:

RB, I don’t think I understand what you mean.
==========

That’s ok. I’m sure he doesn’t either most of the time.

The ecosyestem thinks you are an anomaly as well.

roughbarked said:

Speedy said:

roughbarked said:

He had a simple point which is valid. That other people need to step around it is neither here nor there.

RB, I don’t think I understand what you mean.

I don’t agree that a plant in a pot with a hole in the bottom can be compared to a plant, any plant, in the ground.

The hole in the bottom leads the way to the ground. Try to pick up any successful plant in a pot.

Yes, I know what you mean on this point. A plant will take advantage of all that is available to it. If this means sending roots through the hole in the bottom of the pot then so-be-it.

Would the bamboo (or a tree) break out of its pot if there is no external nutrient available to it?

Speedy said:

roughbarked said:

Speedy said:

RB, I don’t think I understand what you mean.

I don’t agree that a plant in a pot with a hole in the bottom can be compared to a plant, any plant, in the ground.

The hole in the bottom leads the way to the ground. Try to pick up any successful plant in a pot.

Yes, I know what you mean on this point. A plant will take advantage of all that is available to it. If this means sending roots through the hole in the bottom of the pot then so-be-it.

Would the bamboo (or a tree) break out of its pot if there is no external nutrient available to it?

both will break containment if they are able to seek further nutrient, yes.

roughbarked said:

Speedy said:

roughbarked said:

The hole in the bottom leads the way to the ground. Try to pick up any successful plant in a pot.

Yes, I know what you mean on this point. A plant will take advantage of all that is available to it. If this means sending roots through the hole in the bottom of the pot then so-be-it.

Would the bamboo (or a tree) break out of its pot if there is no external nutrient available to it?

both will break containment if they are able to seek further nutrient, yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angkor

Plants growing through pot holes into the ground is an issue for nurseries. On the inventors show a fellow designed a pot so that the roots to get to the ground would need to climb up over a lip. Apparently they don’t do that.

People seem to think I speak in tongues. It is not so. The story is simple. In Latin the principle is Aqua.

It is more about water than much else.

If a tree is where it is adequately watered, many cities will rise and fall while it happily does its thing.

AwesomeO said:

Plants growing through pot holes into the ground is an issue for nurseries. On the inventors show a fellow designed a pot so that the roots to get to the ground would need to climb up over a lip. Apparently they don’t do that.

not looking at the exact equation..

a lip or a gap.. roots do not like to be exposed to the air, in general.

roughbarked said:

People seem to think I speak in tongues. It is not so. The story is simple. In Latin the principle is Aqua.

It is more about water than much else.

If a tree is where it is adequately watered, many cities will rise and fall while it happily does its thing.

Well thanks for clarifying that rb.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

People seem to think I speak in tongues. It is not so. The story is simple. In Latin the principle is Aqua.

It is more about water than much else.

If a tree is where it is adequately watered, many cities will rise and fall while it happily does its thing.

Well thanks for clarifying that rb.

I am your humble servant.

There are other ways to perceive all of this.. Let us go back to the original photo and ask of ourselves, How do we retain the character without the trees? Are there ways to make changes that will appease all, in the long run?

roughbarked said:

Speedy said:

roughbarked said:

The hole in the bottom leads the way to the ground. Try to pick up any successful plant in a pot.

Yes, I know what you mean on this point. A plant will take advantage of all that is available to it. If this means sending roots through the hole in the bottom of the pot then so-be-it.

Would the bamboo (or a tree) break out of its pot if there is no external nutrient available to it?

both will break containment if they are able to seek further nutrient, yes.

So would the bamboo (or a tree) break out of its pot if there is no external nutrient available to it?

Speedy said:

roughbarked said:

Speedy said:

Yes, I know what you mean on this point. A plant will take advantage of all that is available to it. If this means sending roots through the hole in the bottom of the pot then so-be-it.

Would the bamboo (or a tree) break out of its pot if there is no external nutrient available to it?

both will break containment if they are able to seek further nutrient, yes.

So would the bamboo (or a tree) break out of its pot if there is no external nutrient available to it?

I think you are attempting to seek beyond, ‘if they are able’.

So would the bamboo (or a tree) break out of its pot if there is no external nutrient available to it?

once it has used the nutrients in the container then it cant grow anymore.

Speedy said:

roughbarked said:

Speedy said:

Yes, I know what you mean on this point. A plant will take advantage of all that is available to it. If this means sending roots through the hole in the bottom of the pot then so-be-it.

Would the bamboo (or a tree) break out of its pot if there is no external nutrient available to it?

both will break containment if they are able to seek further nutrient, yes.

So would the bamboo (or a tree) break out of its pot if there is no external nutrient available to it?

Anything with a rhizome will push sideways, I had an asparagus plant that burst out of a large pot. When I replanted it in my veggie patch it was as solid as a rock and I had to use an axe to break it up. Also had to chop off over half the lower root system, again with the axe. Didn’t worry the plant which is now doing very well.

roughbarked said:

Speedy said:

roughbarked said:

both will break containment if they are able to seek further nutrient, yes.

So would the bamboo (or a tree) break out of its pot if there is no external nutrient available to it?

I think you are attempting to seek beyond, ‘if they are able’.

Perhaps. I guess I am trying to get a clarification on my thought way back …
I always believed that if a tree is planted in a particular suitable location, and provided there is no major change to conditions eg. sunlight/drainage, it will grow only to a size that can be sustained.

which was answered with a picture of bamboo busting out of a pot.

ChrispenEvan said:

So would the bamboo (or a tree) break out of its pot if there is no external nutrient available to it?

once it has used the nutrients in the container then it cant grow anymore.

that is, if it hasn’t used the nutrients to seek elsewhere.

that is, if it hasn’t used the nutrients to seek elsewhere.

no.

Speedy said:

Perhaps. I guess I am trying to get a clarification on my thought way back …
I always believed that if a tree is planted in a particular suitable location, and provided there is no major change to conditions eg. sunlight/drainage, it will grow only to a size that can be sustained.

which was answered with a picture of bamboo busting out of a pot.

to a size that can be sustained is more than about the containment. tree roots can break big rocks by working with the weathering.

it is all about following aqua.

ChrispenEvan said:

that is, if it hasn’t used the nutrients to seek elsewhere.

no.

There art all sorts of containments and I think you are speaking of that which cannot ever get free.

speedy, if you don’t feed it and just water it and it can’t access them outside the pot then as long as the pot is large enough for it to grow to a size where it has used all the nutrients then it wont crack the pot.

if a plant is growing without containment then i believe all plants have a max size they will grow to. if there are limited nutrients then they will be stunted.

ChrispenEvan said:

speedy, if you don’t feed it and just water it and it can’t access them outside the pot then as long as the pot is large enough for it to grow to a size where it has used all the nutrients then it wont crack the pot.

in essence; it, being?

All plants are different. in their root space requirements. Some plants are happy to be contained.

ChrispenEvan said:

if a plant is growing without containment then i believe all plants have a max size they will grow to. if there are limited nutrients then they will be stunted.

Where did I argue this fact?

happy? that’s anthropomorphizing.

ChrispenEvan said:

speedy, if you don’t feed it and just water it and it can’t access them outside the pot then as long as the pot is large enough for it to grow to a size where it has used all the nutrients then it wont crack the pot.

What if there are enough nutrients in the pot to allow the plant to grow to a size larger than the pot?

who knows roughie, you talk such shit sometimes it hard to know what you’re on about.

ChrispenEvan said:

speedy, if you don’t feed it and just water it and it can’t access them outside the pot then as long as the pot is large enough for it to grow to a size where it has used all the nutrients then it wont crack the pot.

Yes eucs have a different root system and will try and get through any hole in the bottom of the pot. This is still a problem for the plant and as the root grows it cuts off the sap supply, which is not good for the tree, resulting in death or generally looking very sick.

ChrispenEvan said:

happy? that’s anthropomorphizing.

It is because we recognised that some plants love being contained.

ChrispenEvan said:

happy? that’s anthropomorphizing.

It is because we recognised that some plants love being contained.

then it will burst the container asunder. if it is strong enough and the container weak enough. otherwise it’s stuffed.

party_pants said:

ChrispenEvan said:

speedy, if you don’t feed it and just water it and it can’t access them outside the pot then as long as the pot is large enough for it to grow to a size where it has used all the nutrients then it wont crack the pot.

What if there are enough nutrients in the pot to allow the plant to grow to a size larger than the pot?

They need to leak out, to be followed, in that case.

yeah, but we’re talking about a pot that the roots have no access to the outside. so no hole in the bottom, cracks etc.

someone must read my posts after all

>>Yes eucs have a different root system <<

I’ve got a bit of an embarrassment of redgum (E. camaldulensis) seedlings at about the 4 leaf stage growing in my saffron crocus pots at the moment. The big old mama tree must have dropped a lot of seed this year. I was thinking I might try to bonsai one. I’d just kill it, wouldn’t I.

ChrispenEvan said:

who knows roughie, you talk such shit sometimes it hard to know what you’re on about.

I’m happy with that and so are my trees.

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

speedy, if you don’t feed it and just water it and it can’t access them outside the pot then as long as the pot is large enough for it to grow to a size where it has used all the nutrients then it wont crack the pot.

Yes eucs have a different root system and will try and get through any hole in the bottom of the pot. This is still a problem for the plant and as the root grows it cuts off the sap supply, which is not good for the tree, resulting in death or generally looking very sick.

That could pertain to the resistance the pot can put up.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

if a plant is growing without containment then i believe all plants have a max size they will grow to. if there are limited nutrients then they will be stunted.

Where did I argue this fact?

Excellent! So, if new tree/s are planted in the Blue Gums’ location, provided the nutrient/sunlight/water they receive remains stable (unlikely in this location), they should not grow to a size which is larger than that which can be sustained long-term.

wookiemeister said:

someone must read my posts after all

:)

We all do, you know that.

ChrispenEvan said:

then it will burst the container asunder. if it is strong enough and the container weak enough. otherwise it’s stuffed.

Not necessarily, especially with plastic. Usually the root that escapes the pot will become the main one. Eucs and other large species can choke themselves it left in the pot too long, as roots grow around themselves and again stop the sap supply.

buffy said:

>>Yes eucs have a different root system <<

I’ve got a bit of an embarrassment of redgum (E. camaldulensis) seedlings at about the 4 leaf stage growing in my saffron crocus pots at the moment. The big old mama tree must have dropped a lot of seed this year. I was thinking I might try to bonsai one. I’d just kill it, wouldn’t I.

no. You won’t kill it if you keep the aqua up. I had a Eucalyptus melliodora in an average flower seedling punnet, for ten years until when I was away, it was knocked over and the base was in the air before anyone noticed or before I got back.

ChrispenEvan said:

yeah, but we’re talking about a pot that the roots have no access to the outside. so no hole in the bottom, cracks etc.

You talking about aquatics? Very few if any eucs would grow for long in a container like that.

Not necessarily, especially with plastic. Usually the root that escapes the pot will become the main one. Eucs and other large species can choke themselves it left in the pot too long, as roots grow around themselves and again stop the sap supply.

yeah, but i covered all that in my post.

Speedy said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

if a plant is growing without containment then i believe all plants have a max size they will grow to. if there are limited nutrients then they will be stunted.

Where did I argue this fact?

Excellent! So, if new tree/s are planted in the Blue Gums’ location, provided the nutrient/sunlight/water they receive remains stable (unlikely in this location), they should not grow to a size which is larger than that which can be sustained long-term.

The correct trees for the situation, yes or the correct situation for the trees, yes.

ChrispenEvan said:

Not necessarily, especially with plastic. Usually the root that escapes the pot will become the main one. Eucs and other large species can choke themselves it left in the pot too long, as roots grow around themselves and again stop the sap supply.

yeah, but i covered all that in my post.

bs.

buffy said:

>>Yes eucs have a different root system <<

I’ve got a bit of an embarrassment of redgum (E. camaldulensis) seedlings at about the 4 leaf stage growing in my saffron crocus pots at the moment. The big old mama tree must have dropped a lot of seed this year. I was thinking I might try to bonsai one. I’d just kill it, wouldn’t I.

Probably be difficult, but if you trimmed and kept on trimming the roots from a young age, but probably more work that it is worth.

Speedy said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

if a plant is growing without containment then i believe all plants have a max size they will grow to. if there are limited nutrients then they will be stunted.

Where did I argue this fact?

Excellent! So, if new tree/s are planted in the Blue Gums’ location, provided the nutrient/sunlight/water they receive remains stable (unlikely in this location), they should not grow to a size which is larger than that which can be sustained long-term.

They just start looking sick. Not good.

then it will burst the container asunder. if it is strong enough and the container weak enough.

Not necessarily, especially with plastic. Usually the root that escapes the pot will become the main one.

otherwise it’s stuffed.

Eucs and other large species can choke themselves it left in the pot too long, as roots grow around themselves and again stop the sap supply.

yes.

PermeateFree said:

Probably be difficult, but if you trimmed and kept on trimming the roots from a young age, but probably more work that it is worth.

Yes it can be difficult but difficulty is what we can all put before our eyes.

The simple answer can be envisaged with my description of a yellow box in a flower seedling punnet for ten years before something tipped it over for too many hours/days in the wrong weather for such an event,.

roughbarked said:

Speedy said:

roughbarked said:

Where did I argue this fact?

Excellent! So, if new tree/s are planted in the Blue Gums’ location, provided the nutrient/sunlight/water they receive remains stable (unlikely in this location), they should not grow to a size which is larger than that which can be sustained long-term.

The correct trees for the situation, yes or the correct situation for the trees, yes.

Well, just imagine that they replaced them with trees that are not suitable for the location. Another pair of Blue Gums, say.

They would not grow to the size of the originals. They would grow only as large as their conditions allow them to. Provided these conditions do not change, these trees could live there for >100 years?

ChrispenEvan said:

then it will burst the container asunder. if it is strong enough and the container weak enough.

Not necessarily, especially with plastic. Usually the root that escapes the pot will become the main one.

otherwise it’s stuffed.

Eucs and other large species can choke themselves it left in the pot too long, as roots grow around themselves and again stop the sap supply.

yes.

win!

shit, i don’t even bag on about being a horticulturist but it seems i make more sense than those that claim they are.

ChrispenEvan said:

then it will burst the container asunder. if it is strong enough and the container weak enough.

Not necessarily, especially with plastic. Usually the root that escapes the pot will become the main one.

otherwise it’s stuffed.

Eucs and other large species can choke themselves it left in the pot too long, as roots grow around themselves and again stop the sap supply.

yes.

That’s a bit better. ;)

well that is the same as what you were claiming as bs, so maybe you need to get your act together.

Speedy said:

roughbarked said:

Speedy said:

Excellent! So, if new tree/s are planted in the Blue Gums’ location, provided the nutrient/sunlight/water they receive remains stable (unlikely in this location), they should not grow to a size which is larger than that which can be sustained long-term.

The correct trees for the situation, yes or the correct situation for the trees, yes.

Well, just imagine that they replaced them with trees that are not suitable for the location. Another pair of Blue Gums, say.

They would not grow to the size of the originals. They would grow only as large as their conditions allow them to. Provided these conditions do not change, these trees could live there for >100 years?

In the situation described the only absolute would be that the trees couldn’t grow at all.
Everything else is a struggle to ascertain.

probably not speedy as the conditions have changed and there would be less exposed soil for water and nutrient ingress. to the root system.

ChrispenEvan said:

shit, i don’t even bag on about being a horticulturist but it seems i make more sense than those that claim they are.

;)

anyway

it is all the fun of the circus;)

ChrispenEvan said:

well that is the same as what you were claiming as bs, so maybe you need to get your act together.

no.. I was reading a different post.. be aware, I cannot keep up with everything all the time.

roughbarked said:

Speedy said:

roughbarked said:

The correct trees for the situation, yes or the correct situation for the trees, yes.

Well, just imagine that they replaced them with trees that are not suitable for the location. Another pair of Blue Gums, say.

They would not grow to the size of the originals. They would grow only as large as their conditions allow them to. Provided these conditions do not change, these trees could live there for >100 years?

In the situation described the only absolute would be that the trees couldn’t grow at all.
Everything else is a struggle to ascertain.

What has changed in the habitat that you think will influence the new plants?

ChrispenEvan said:

probably not speedy as the conditions have changed and there would be less exposed soil for water and nutrient ingress. to the root system.

in this you do make sense.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

Speedy said:

Well, just imagine that they replaced them with trees that are not suitable for the location. Another pair of Blue Gums, say.

They would not grow to the size of the originals. They would grow only as large as their conditions allow them to. Provided these conditions do not change, these trees could live there for >100 years?

In the situation described the only absolute would be that the trees couldn’t grow at all.
Everything else is a struggle to ascertain.

What has changed in the habitat that you think will influence the new plants?

Everything

someone has to.

ChrispenEvan said:

someone has to.

Well we are talking about a situation where everything has changed.. so, anything could go if the correct decision is made.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

someone has to.

Well we are talking about a situation where everything has changed.. so, anything could go if the correct decision is made.

and the decision needs to be at least as far into the forseeable future as the past of the trees pictured.

ChrispenEvan said:

probably not speedy as the conditions have changed and there would be less exposed soil for water and nutrient ingress. to the root system.

Buffy’s bonsai post is timely here. I guess that some species lend themselves well to being stunted/bonsai-ed(?) and others do not. This is not the case for eucalypts, I gather.

Speedy said:

ChrispenEvan said:

probably not speedy as the conditions have changed and there would be less exposed soil for water and nutrient ingress. to the root system.

Buffy’s bonsai post is timely here. I guess that some species lend themselves well to being stunted/bonsai-ed(?) and others do not. This is not the case for eucalypts, I gather.

no

Eucalypts and many of them are happy bonsai students.

ChrispenEvan said:

someone has to.

A few facts as to how eucalypts react to different habitat. If there is a clay soil the tree will most likely be shallow rooted and it will likely dislodge pavers and possibly cause a lot of problems. If a deep sand habitat, the roots will more likely grow down in search of moisture. The trees that like one habitat are less likely to like the other, so the right tree for the right environment is important. Of course there are many variations between that would also influence the tree sslection.

roughbarked said:

Speedy said:

ChrispenEvan said:

probably not speedy as the conditions have changed and there would be less exposed soil for water and nutrient ingress. to the root system.

Buffy’s bonsai post is timely here. I guess that some species lend themselves well to being stunted/bonsai-ed(?) and others do not. This is not the case for eucalypts, I gather.

no

Eucalypts and many of them are happy bonsai students.

Again, it is all about what water is given and where.

roughbarked said:

There are other ways to perceive all of this.. Let us go back to the original photo and ask of ourselves, How do we retain the character without the trees? Are there ways to make changes that will appease all, in the long run?

Good question.

I say it is impossible. Best to accept that this area is not suitable for large trees and to redirect resources to management of some of their bushland areas.

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

someone has to.

A few facts as to how eucalypts react to different habitat. If there is a clay soil the tree will most likely be shallow rooted and it will likely dislodge pavers and possibly cause a lot of problems. If a deep sand habitat, the roots will more likely grow down in search of moisture. The trees that like one habitat are less likely to like the other, so the right tree for the right environment is important. Of course there are many variations between that would also influence the tree selection.

Unbeknown to many is that Jack and I agree in many instances.

Speedy said:

ChrispenEvan said:

probably not speedy as the conditions have changed and there would be less exposed soil for water and nutrient ingress. to the root system.

Buffy’s bonsai post is timely here. I guess that some species lend themselves well to being stunted/bonsai-ed(?) and others do not. This is not the case for eucalypts, I gather.

Eucalypts that normally grow on very rocky ground, would be better suited for bonsai than ones that grow to a huge size around swamps.

Speedy said:

roughbarked said:

There are other ways to perceive all of this.. Let us go back to the original photo and ask of ourselves, How do we retain the character without the trees? Are there ways to make changes that will appease all, in the long run?

Good question.

I say it is impossible. Best to accept that this area is not suitable for large trees and to redirect resources to management of some of their bushland areas.

There are indeed instances where maintenance has been left too long and the only way to appease is by new development.

PermeateFree said:

Speedy said:

ChrispenEvan said:

probably not speedy as the conditions have changed and there would be less exposed soil for water and nutrient ingress. to the root system.

Buffy’s bonsai post is timely here. I guess that some species lend themselves well to being stunted/bonsai-ed(?) and others do not. This is not the case for eucalypts, I gather.

Eucalypts that normally grow on very rocky ground, would be better suited for bonsai than ones that grow to a huge size around swamps.

Well let’s scratch eucs then, and refer specifically to these Blue Gums. Would I be correct in concluding that they do not lend themselves well to being bonsai-ed?

PermeateFree said:

Speedy said:

ChrispenEvan said:

probably not speedy as the conditions have changed and there would be less exposed soil for water and nutrient ingress. to the root system.

Buffy’s bonsai post is timely here. I guess that some species lend themselves well to being stunted/bonsai-ed(?) and others do not. This is not the case for eucalypts, I gather.

Eucalypts that normally grow on very rocky ground, would be better suited for bonsai than ones that grow to a huge size around swamps.

I must admit that a bonsai redgum is but a wimpy seedling.

Speedy said:

PermeateFree said:

Speedy said:

Buffy’s bonsai post is timely here. I guess that some species lend themselves well to being stunted/bonsai-ed(?) and others do not. This is not the case for eucalypts, I gather.

Eucalypts that normally grow on very rocky ground, would be better suited for bonsai than ones that grow to a huge size around swamps.

Well let’s scratch eucs then, and refer specifically to these Blue Gums. Would I be correct in concluding that they do not lend themselves well to being bonsai-ed?

You could bet money on it.

Speedy said:

PermeateFree said:

Speedy said:

Buffy’s bonsai post is timely here. I guess that some species lend themselves well to being stunted/bonsai-ed(?) and others do not. This is not the case for eucalypts, I gather.

Eucalypts that normally grow on very rocky ground, would be better suited for bonsai than ones that grow to a huge size around swamps.

Well let’s scratch eucs then, and refer specifically to these Blue Gums. Would I be correct in concluding that they do not lend themselves well to being bonsai-ed?

you need to keep reading posts before you post.

PermeateFree said:

Speedy said:

PermeateFree said:

Eucalypts that normally grow on very rocky ground, would be better suited for bonsai than ones that grow to a huge size around swamps.

Well let’s scratch eucs then, and refer specifically to these Blue Gums. Would I be correct in concluding that they do not lend themselves well to being bonsai-ed?

You could bet money on it.

Depending on surrounding vegetation, but you should have heaps of other suitable tree species growing in the Sydney region. So plenty to choose from.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Speedy said:

Buffy’s bonsai post is timely here. I guess that some species lend themselves well to being stunted/bonsai-ed(?) and others do not. This is not the case for eucalypts, I gather.

Eucalypts that normally grow on very rocky ground, would be better suited for bonsai than ones that grow to a huge size around swamps.

I must admit that a bonsai redgum is but a wimpy seedling.

There exist however, distinct species of redgum er. E. camaldulensis sssp. that is. ie: Eucalyptus camaldulensis sp. obtusa that are capable of survival for long periods without water.

PermeateFree said:

Speedy said:

PermeateFree said:

Eucalypts that normally grow on very rocky ground, would be better suited for bonsai than ones that grow to a huge size around swamps.

Well let’s scratch eucs then, and refer specifically to these Blue Gums. Would I be correct in concluding that they do not lend themselves well to being bonsai-ed?

You could bet money on it.

Okay. But as some species can do well and be healthy when they are stunted/bonsai-ed, if they are (of a suitable species and are) used here, they can look good and be healthy in the long term?

PermeateFree said:

Speedy said:

PermeateFree said:

Eucalypts that normally grow on very rocky ground, would be better suited for bonsai than ones that grow to a huge size around swamps.

Well let’s scratch eucs then, and refer specifically to these Blue Gums. Would I be correct in concluding that they do not lend themselves well to being bonsai-ed?

You could bet money on it.

Which has indeed been the whole point of this argument.

Speedy said:

PermeateFree said:

Speedy said:

Well let’s scratch eucs then, and refer specifically to these Blue Gums. Would I be correct in concluding that they do not lend themselves well to being bonsai-ed?

You could bet money on it.

Okay. But as some species can do well and be healthy when they are stunted/bonsai-ed, if they are (of a suitable species and are) used here, they can look good and be healthy in the long term?

Yes there are many tough rainforest trees that do not have large adventurous root systems. Generally you would be looking for a fibrous roots, rather than the very large roots required to support a big tree in strong winds.

PermeateFree said:

Speedy said:

PermeateFree said:

You could bet money on it.

Okay. But as some species can do well and be healthy when they are stunted/bonsai-ed, if they are (of a suitable species and are) used here, they can look good and be healthy in the long term?

Yes there are many tough rainforest trees that do not have large adventurous root systems. Generally you would be looking for a fibrous roots, rather than the very large roots required to support a big tree in strong winds.

Simply, trees that are suitable for colonising impenetrable soils.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Speedy said:

Well let’s scratch eucs then, and refer specifically to these Blue Gums. Would I be correct in concluding that they do not lend themselves well to being bonsai-ed?

You could bet money on it.

Which has indeed been the whole point of this argument.

No it has not. RB, you may recall back in your first post in this thread you stated:

Planting the new trees under the paving is as much a death sentence as paving under the original trees. Buildings and trees never get along well for very long.

and I replied:

I always believed that if a tree is planted in a particular suitable location, and provided there is no major change to conditions eg. sunlight/drainage, it will grow only to a size that can be sustained.

I do value your, and others’ opinions and am trying hard to understand your notions. This thread has taken many tangents along the way but I am trying to get back to this point which I don’t yet agree with, in a way which is logical and conclusive.

Speedy said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

You could bet money on it.

Which has indeed been the whole point of this argument.

No it has not. RB, you may recall back in your first post in this thread you stated:

Planting the new trees under the paving is as much a death sentence as paving under the original trees. Buildings and trees never get along well for very long.

and I replied:

I always believed that if a tree is planted in a particular suitable location, and provided there is no major change to conditions eg. sunlight/drainage, it will grow only to a size that can be sustained.

I do value your, and others’ opinions and am trying hard to understand your notions. This thread has taken many tangents along the way but I am trying to get back to this point which I don’t yet agree with, in a way which is logical and conclusive.

The reason it seems sort of not withstanding with me is that I think always of the tree.
Which may oft seem humanely impossible.

My reasoning is WTF do I grow trees if people cannot keep them alive?

Whatever the human development, it needs trees. It stands to reason that if the trees were there hundreds of years before the development or even if they were there one year before the hundred year old development, that the life of the tree should have been put first within the planning of the development.

To sustain a tree, the plan has to be in the drainage system of the development.

roughbarked said:

Speedy said:

roughbarked said:

Which has indeed been the whole point of this argument.

No it has not. RB, you may recall back in your first post in this thread you stated:

Planting the new trees under the paving is as much a death sentence as paving under the original trees. Buildings and trees never get along well for very long.

and I replied:

I always believed that if a tree is planted in a particular suitable location, and provided there is no major change to conditions eg. sunlight/drainage, it will grow only to a size that can be sustained.

I do value your, and others’ opinions and am trying hard to understand your notions. This thread has taken many tangents along the way but I am trying to get back to this point which I don’t yet agree with, in a way which is logical and conclusive.

The reason it seems sort of not withstanding with me is that I think always of the tree.
Which may oft seem humanely impossible.

My reasoning is WTF do I grow trees if people cannot keep them alive?

Whatever the human development, it needs trees. It stands to reason that if the trees were there hundreds of years before the development or even if they were there one year before the hundred year old development, that the life of the tree should have been put first within the planning of the development.

To sustain a tree, the plan has to be in the drainage system of the development.

It simply stands to reason that the right tree in the right place is a thing of beauty that nobody can find fault with.

roughbarked said:

The reason it seems sort of not withstanding with me is that I think always of the tree.
Which may oft seem humanely impossible.

My reasoning is WTF do I grow trees if people cannot keep them alive?

Whatever the human development, it needs trees. It stands to reason that if the trees were there hundreds of years before the development or even if they were there one year before the hundred year old development, that the life of the tree should have been put first within the planning of the development.

To sustain a tree, the plan has to be in the drainage system of the development.

Thanks rb. I see your point and understand your frustration when you invest so much of your time into your trees and it seems a waste sometimes.

Yes, we “should” put the life of the tree first and we “should” plan good drainage systems etc., but we haven’t and we won’t in the near future. Development and developers will continue to be valued over the state of the environment for some years to come, at least around these parts anyway.

roughbarked said:

It simply stands to reason that the right tree in the right place is a thing of beauty that nobody can find fault with.

… and may I ask, can there be a right tree in place of these Blue Gums? Or, is planting the new trees under the paving … as much a death sentence as paving under the original trees ?

Speedy said:

see your point and understand your frustration when you invest so much of your time into your trees and it seems a waste sometimes.

Yes, we “should” put the life of the tree first and we “should” plan good drainage systems etc., but we haven’t and we won’t in the near future. Development and developers will continue to be valued over the state of the environment for some years to come, at least around these parts anyway.

Developers will come to comprehend the value of the existing trees in the environment. Architects can even plan it. We have seen this in Australian past development. How did Walter Burley Griffin plan that his trees would work?

Speedy said:

roughbarked said:

It simply stands to reason that the right tree in the right place is a thing of beauty that nobody can find fault with.

… and may I ask, can there be a right tree in place of these Blue Gums? Or, is planting the new trees under the paving … as much a death sentence as paving under the original trees ?

My point all along is that if you want to save these trees the answer is, under the paving.

roughbarked said:

Speedy said:

roughbarked said:

It simply stands to reason that the right tree in the right place is a thing of beauty that nobody can find fault with.

… and may I ask, can there be a right tree in place of these Blue Gums? Or, is planting the new trees under the paving … as much a death sentence as paving under the original trees ?

My point all along is that if you want to save these trees the answer is, under the paving.

Many points have been made about containment, nutrient and suchlike. I even waffled on about lubricant.
However there is always a dry side to any argument and it is this that I was awaiting someone to bring up. Sadly it hasn’t happened and I cost $50 per minute for consultation.

roughbarked said:

Developers will come to comprehend the value of the existing trees in the environment. Architects can even plan it. We have seen this in Australian past development. How did Walter Burley Griffin plan that his trees would work?

Never given it much thought. Always too busy cursing the poor fellow every time I try to find my way through Canberra.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

Speedy said:

… and may I ask, can there be a right tree in place of these Blue Gums? Or, is planting the new trees under the paving … as much a death sentence as paving under the original trees ?

My point all along is that if you want to save these trees the answer is, under the paving.

Many points have been made about containment, nutrient and suchlike. I even waffled on about lubricant.
However there is always a dry side to any argument and it is this that I was awaiting someone to bring up. Sadly it hasn’t happened and I cost $50 per minute for consultation.

At 3000 dollars an hour I am guessing you are not getting much consultancy work.

Speedy said:

roughbarked said:

Developers will come to comprehend the value of the existing trees in the environment. Architects can even plan it. We have seen this in Australian past development. How did Walter Burley Griffin plan that his trees would work?

Never given it much thought. Always too busy cursing the poor fellow every time I try to find my way through Canberra.

That, wasn’t entirely his fault but nonetheless, he was one architect whom included trees within his argument.

AwesomeO said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

My point all along is that if you want to save these trees the answer is, under the paving.

Many points have been made about containment, nutrient and suchlike. I even waffled on about lubricant.
However there is always a dry side to any argument and it is this that I was awaiting someone to bring up. Sadly it hasn’t happened and I cost $50 per minute for consultation.

At 3000 dollars an hour I am guessing you are not getting much consultancy work.

My lawyer is, I’m simply trying to cover his costs ;)

roughbarked said:

AwesomeO said:

roughbarked said:

Many points have been made about containment, nutrient and suchlike. I even waffled on about lubricant.
However there is always a dry side to any argument and it is this that I was awaiting someone to bring up. Sadly it hasn’t happened and I cost $50 per minute for consultation.

At 3000 dollars an hour I am guessing you are not getting much consultancy work.

My lawyer is, I’m simply trying to cover his costs ;)

back to reality.. The dry side of the argument is something no tree enjoys, for long.

Speedy said:

roughbarked said:

Developers will come to comprehend the value of the existing trees in the environment. Architects can even plan it. We have seen this in Australian past development. How did Walter Burley Griffin plan that his trees would work?

Never given it much thought. Always too busy cursing the poor fellow every time I try to find my way through Canberra.

I have live in Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra and if you think Canberra with its logical layout, well posted signs and roundabouts is hard to find your way around never move to a city.

I dunno where this Canberra hard to navigate meme comes from but it is rediculous. It has to be the easiest city in the world to navigate.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

Speedy said:

… and may I ask, can there be a right tree in place of these Blue Gums? Or, is planting the new trees under the paving … as much a death sentence as paving under the original trees ?

My point all along is that if you want to save these trees the answer is, under the paving.

Many points have been made about containment, nutrient and suchlike. I even waffled on about lubricant.
However there is always a dry side to any argument and it is this that I was awaiting someone to bring up. Sadly it hasn’t happened and I cost $50 per minute for consultation.

advice is cheap, you can often buy it on roadsides for $2/bag…

ridiculous

stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

My point all along is that if you want to save these trees the answer is, under the paving.

Many points have been made about containment, nutrient and suchlike. I even waffled on about lubricant.
However there is always a dry side to any argument and it is this that I was awaiting someone to bring up. Sadly it hasn’t happened and I cost $50 per minute for consultation.

advice is cheap, you can often buy it on roadsides for $2/bag…

If you can read between the dry sheets of paper I offer then you are doing well. The advice is free. and its hundreds of years in the gathering.

wookiemeister said:

ridiculous

Thank you, I consider forums to be a conversational format and don’t get hung up too much on spelling. But when I worked I was an attention to detail and style guide demon.

wookiemeister said:

ridiculous

mirror gazing again?

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

ridiculous

Thank you, I consider forums to be a conversational format and don’t get hung up too much on spelling. But when I worked I was an attention to detail and style guide demon.

just messing with ya

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

ridiculous

Thank you, I consider forums to be a conversational format and don’t get hung up too much on spelling. But when I worked I was an attention to detail and style guide demon.

It doth seemeth that thou ist still in attendance.

AwesomeO said:

Speedy said:

roughbarked said:

Developers will come to comprehend the value of the existing trees in the environment. Architects can even plan it. We have seen this in Australian past development. How did Walter Burley Griffin plan that his trees would work?

Never given it much thought. Always too busy cursing the poor fellow every time I try to find my way through Canberra.

I have live in Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra and if you think Canberra with its logical layout, well posted signs and roundabouts is hard to find your way around never move to a city.

I dunno where this Canberra hard to navigate meme comes from but it is rediculous. It has to be the easiest city in the world to navigate.

:) Well, I never have any difficulty navigating around Sydney (where I live) or Melbourne/Brisbane (where I visit occasionally).

wookiemeister said:

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

ridiculous

Thank you, I consider forums to be a conversational format and don’t get hung up too much on spelling. But when I worked I was an attention to detail and style guide demon.

just messing with ya

When weren’t you?

Speedy said:

AwesomeO said:

Speedy said:

Never given it much thought. Always too busy cursing the poor fellow every time I try to find my way through Canberra.

I have live in Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra and if you think Canberra with its logical layout, well posted signs and roundabouts is hard to find your way around never move to a city.

I dunno where this Canberra hard to navigate meme comes from but it is rediculous. It has to be the easiest city in the world to navigate.

:) Well, I never have any difficulty navigating around Sydney (where I live) or Melbourne/Brisbane (where I visit occasionally).

‘
That’s because they are ratraces , whereas the hamster takes a long slow curve around scenery that distracts…

roughbarked said:

Speedy said:

roughbarked said:

Which has indeed been the whole point of this argument.

No it has not. RB, you may recall back in your first post in this thread you stated:

Planting the new trees under the paving is as much a death sentence as paving under the original trees. Buildings and trees never get along well for very long.

and I replied:

I always believed that if a tree is planted in a particular suitable location, and provided there is no major change to conditions eg. sunlight/drainage, it will grow only to a size that can be sustained.

I do value your, and others’ opinions and am trying hard to understand your notions. This thread has taken many tangents along the way but I am trying to get back to this point which I don’t yet agree with, in a way which is logical and conclusive.

The reason it seems sort of not withstanding with me is that I think always of the tree.
Which may oft seem humanely impossible.

My reasoning is WTF do I grow trees if people cannot keep them alive?

Whatever the human development, it needs trees. It stands to reason that if the trees were there hundreds of years before the development or even if they were there one year before the hundred year old development, that the life of the tree should have been put first within the planning of the development.

To sustain a tree, the plan has to be in the drainage system of the development.

In defence of this argument I am able to do a photographic essay of where trees were either planted or accidental where everything worked in their favour and the species of tree was inefficient in arousing neighbourhood wrath. Am also able to photographically essay the planting of millions of trees either in the wrong place or the place wasn’t planned for them, whichever, they all make for boring photographs.