Beneath the Canopy: Peterborough`s Heritage Trees and Urban Forest

Transcription

Beneath the Canopy: Peterborough’s Heritage Trees and Urban Forest
Includes:
Final Report
By Jasmine Cabanaw
Completed for: Peterborough GreenUP
Supervising Professor: Finis Dunaway
Trent Centre for Community-Based Education
Department: History
Course Code: HIST 4900Y
Course Name: Reading Course
Term: Spring/Summer
Date of Project Submission: August 2013
Project ID: 4422
Call Number:
Prepared for Peterborough GreenUp
In Partnership with the Trent Centre for Community Based Education
Prepared by Jasmine June Cabanaw
Supervised by Finis Dunaway, Department of History, Trent University
2
Abstract
Urban forestry is a modern concept. First coined by Erik Jorgensen in the 1960s, the
phrase “urban forest” is now a widely recognized one. However, there is a lack of
government legislation to support municipal urban forest strategies, development, and
management.
GreenUp has successfully lobbied for tree by-laws in Peterborough. However, the bylaws need more cultural and financial weight in order to function efficiently. The book
about Peterborough’s heritage trees aims to raise awareness about the cultural importance
of heritage trees and the urban forest in Peterborough. As well, the book serves as a
community project in which all residents of Peterborough can be involved. Community
members contributed stories, photographs, and research for the book.
Urban forestry has a unique place in environmental history. Perceptions of wilderness
have evolved from a time when wilderness was thought to impede and clash with
civilization. Urban forestry demonstrates that nature and civilization can co-exist
harmoniously. However, it is important to have eco-conscious strategies in place when
managing urban forests so that environmental disasters, such as Dutch Elm Disease, can
be prevented.
GreenUp is trying to ensure that Peterborough’s urban forest will be managed sustainably
and responsibly.
This document includes research, data collection, and design concepts for a book about
Peterbough’s heritage trees and urban forest, by the Peterborough company, GreenUp.
My contribution to the project included a lot of field research and participation in
Steering Committee meetings. Research involved visiting the Peterborough archives,
soliciting photography of unusual, unique, commemorative, or heritage trees, as well as
contacting people to be interviewed. I contributed my perspective on all aspects of
design, such as font style and layout. A revised version of the photo essay I submitted as
a course assignment will be published in the book. As well, I had input on the location
and structure of the book launch that will be held in Peterborough in December. My final
research paper examined the history of urban forestry in Ontario from 1946-present.
3
Acknowledgements
The wonderful people at GreenUp, including all members of the Steering Committee,
have been a great source of guidance. As coordinator of the project, Sheryl Loucks in
particular has been wonderful to communicate with. As well, this course would not have
been possible without a supervising professor. Finis Dunaway was an excellent professor
and designed a syllabus for this course that was both educational and interesting. Thanks
also to Andy Cragg and Marjorie McDonald for their work at the Trent Centre for
Community Based Education in coordinating this project.
4
Table of Contents
Course Syllabus
5
Commemorative Trees Essay
8
Sadleir House Photo Essay
14
Final Essay: Ontario’s Urban Forest History from 1946 to 2013
24
Discovering Peterborough’s Heritage Trees and Urban Forest
42
Steering Committee Meetings
47
Call for Photography Submissions
48
Links to Potential Photographers
50
Data Collection Questions
51
Stories from Interviews
53
5
HIST 4900Y—TCCBE Project on Peterborough Green-Up and Heritage Trees
Instructor:
Finis Dunaway
Required Readings:
Each set of readings will be discussed in meetings with the instructor.
1. What is Environmental History?
William Cronon, “The Uses of Environmental History,” Environmental History Review
17 (Fall 1993): 1-22. [Also reprinted in Canadian Environmental History: Essential
Readings, ed. David Freeland Duke (Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press, 2006), 25-41.]
Donald Worster, “Doing Environmental History,” in The Ends of the Earth: Perspectives
on Modern Environmental History, ed. Donald Worster (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1988), 289-307. [Also reprinted in Canadian Environmental History, 924.]
William Cronon, “The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature,”
in Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature, ed. William Cronon (New York:
Norton, 1995), 69-90.
Ellen Stroud, “Who Cares About Forests? How Forest History Matters,” in A Companion
to American Environmental History, ed. Douglas Cazaux Sackman (Malden, MA: WileyBlackwell, 2010), 410-424.
2. Forests in Western Thought and Culture
Robert Pogue Harrison, Forests: The Shadow of Civilization (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1992), entire book.
3. Trees, Cities, and the Urban Forest
Max Page, “Uses of the Axe: Toward a Treeless New York,” in his The Creative
Destruction of Manhattan, 1900-1940 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999),
177-215.
Joanna Dean, “‘Said Tree Is a Veritable Nuisance’: Ottawa’s Street Trees, 1869-1939,”
Urban History Review/Revue d’histoire urbaine XXXIV no. 1 (Fall 2005): 46-57.
6
Joanna Dean, “Seeing Trees, Thinking Forests: Urban Forestry at the University of
Toronto in the 1960s,” in Method and Meaning in Canadian Environmental History, ed.
Alan MacEachern and William J. Turkel (Toronto: Nelson Education, 2009), 236-253.
Thomas J. Campanella, Republic of Shade: New England and the American Elm (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), selections.
4. Visual Sources and Environmental History
William Cronon, “Telling Tales on Canvas: Landscapes of Frontier Change,” in
Discovered Lands, Invented Pasts: Transforming Visions of the American West, ed. Jules
Prown et al. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), 37-86.
Angela L. Miller, “The Fate of Wilderness in American Landscape Art: The Dilemmas of
‘Nature’s Nation’,” in A Keener Perception: Ecocritical Studies in American Art History,
ed. Alan C. Braddock and Christoph Irmscher (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press,
2009), 85-109.
Alan C. Braddock, “Ecocritical Art History,” American Art 23 (Summer 2009): 24-28.
Joan M. Schwartz, “The Photograph: Between Landscape and Environment,”
Environmental History 12 (October 2007): 966-993.
Selected Gallery Essays from Environmental History.
5. Oral History and Environmental History
“Talking Green: Oral History and Environmental History,” special issue of the Oral
History Forum (2010), available online at
http://www.oralhistoryforum.ca/index.php/ohf/issue/view/36/showToc
Marking Scheme:
Participation: 20%
Photograph Analysis Essay (4-5 pages; due June 21): 10%
Short Essay (4-5 pages; due July 12): 10%
Green-Up Research and Final TCCBE Report (due August 7): 25%
Final Research Essay (15-20 pages; due August 7): 35%
University Policies:
7
Academic Integrity: Academic dishonesty, which includes plagiarism and cheating, is
an extremely serious academic offence and carries penalties varying from a 0 grade on an
assignment to expulsion from the University. Definitions, penalties, and procedures for
dealing with plagiarism and cheating are set out in Trent University’s Academic Integrity
Policy. You have a responsibility to educate yourself – unfamiliarity with the policy is
not an excuse. You are strongly encouraged to visit Trent’s Academic Integrity website to
learn more – www.trentu.ca/academicintegrity.
Access to Instruction: It is Trent University’s intent to create an inclusive learning
environment. If a student has a disability and/or health consideration and feels that he/she
may need accommodations to succeed in this course, the student should contact the
Disability Services Office (Blackburn Hall, Suite 132, 748-1281,
[email protected]) as soon as possible. Complete text can be found under
Access to Instruction in the Academic Calendar.
8
Commemorative Trees and Living Memory
Commemoration has many shapes and forms and ranges from the individual to
the international level. A variety of commemorative objects are employed, and include
everything from a gift card, to a plaque, to a city park. When examined at the individual,
group, and municipal levels, one of the most common types of objects used to
commemorate people is trees. Often times, a tree is used even when there is already a
commemorative plaque or marker in place. The practice of using trees as a
commemorative tool is so widespread that both private and public organizations exist to
facilitate the demand.1 Why are trees so unique in commemorating people? What is the
cultural relationship between trees and people that make trees such a popular
commemorative object? There are two key answers to these questions. The first involves
the way people view memory and heritage; commemoration is not just about
remembering, but about keeping the past alive.2 The second answer lies in the nature of
the tree itself; it’s very makeup lends itself to commemoration.3 There are both positive
and negative outcomes of utilizing commemorative trees. This essay will explore why we
use trees to commemorate individuals, as well as the benefits and problems associated
with commemorative trees, and will argue that trees are a popular way to commemorate
individuals because trees are a literal way of keeping memory alive.
It is interesting that commemorative trees are popular at an individual and even
municipal level, but not at higher levels, such as federal or international. The reason for
this lies in the agendas behind commemoration. Often times, larger commemorative
bodies, such as Parks Canada, have a political or historical agenda attached to
9
commemoration. An example of this is the current Conservative government in Canada
and the numerous War of 1812 commemorations, which contain a patriotic attribute even
when the things being commemorated are people, such as Sir Isaac Brock.4 The majority
of these commemorations are celebratory events and statues, not trees.5 On the contrary,
when an individual or small group commemorates people, a tree is a popular choice. The
reason for this is because personal memory is emotional and related to individual
personality.6 The person being commemorated is not usually someone of historical
significance, but of personal significance. For example, the Peterborough Regional
Health Centre recently planted a tree to commemorate colleagues and volunteers who had
passed away.7 The agenda behind this type of commemoration is to keep memory alive; it
is not about public history, but personal memory, even if the commemoration is in a
public space.
Considering the emotional quality involved when a group or individual
commemorates a person, using a tree as a commemorative marker makes perfect sense.
What better way to keep the memory of a person alive than by commemorating them
with something that is living? As well, the lengthy lifespan of trees provides an illusion
of immortality, or at least a method for prolonging the living memory of someone who is
deceased.8 Trees are a literal connection to the past; years from the planting, people can
touch the very thing that was alive during the time of the commemoration.9 There could
also be an idea of rebirth and transcendence, as the memory attached to an individual
shifts from its human form to that of the tree. For example, trees are sometimes planted
over the ashes of deceased loved ones. That trees are rooted in the ground bolsters this
idea; the living memory of a person represented by a commemorative tree has a literal
10
connection to the earth and thus to the community he or she is being remembered by.
Lastly, the antiquity of trees also gives them a sense of authority.10 A commemorative
bench or plaque may be a nice statement, but the living age of a tree carries a weight that
gives the commemoration a sense of importance.11
There are other benefits to commemorative trees in addition to the ability of trees
to provide living memory. One of these benefits is the typically low cost. For example,
the city of Toronto charges $642 for a commemorative tree with a plaque, but $2,200 for
a bench with a plaque.12 Convenience is also a benefit; a bench without a plaque is
insignificant, but a tree without a plaque can grow to towering heights and provides a
visibility that smaller commemorative objects do not. It is quite easy to buy a sapling
from a nursery, but having a commemorative plaque or statue created can be quite
involved. There are also environmental benefits associated with commemorative tree
planting. If the tree being planted is native to its environment, the commemoration
directly contributes to the conservation of the native ecosystem.13 According to the
Toronto Commemorative Donation Program, “The seeds from these trees will continue to
make their way into our natural areas, parks and ravines as they have in the past.”14
Lastly, commemorative trees benefit communities by contributing to urban heritage. In
addition to the heritage they represent in and of themselves, the trees become part of the
urban forest and contribute to the larger heritage of the urban forest.15
However, there are also some negatives associated with commemorative trees.
For example, what happens if the tree dies? Does this mean the memory that was
commemorated is no longer alive? Would the planting of another tree be sufficient to
replace the one that died? People have long had strong cultural ties to trees. For example,
11
numerous communities were devastated by the loss of their elm trees when Dutch Elm
Disease struck in the 1960s; the elm represented the might, dignity, and grace of New
England to such an extent that the death of the trees felt like a loss of culture itself.16
The spread of Dutch Elm Disease was a result of monoculture, and demonstrates
the destructive environmental effects that can occur when tree plantings are not done in
an environmentally responsible manner.17 Alien tree species, for example, can displace
native species and can disrupt the local ecosystem.18 Urban planning must be taken into
consideration, as well. Urban elements, such as power lines, sidewalks, and signage must
be taken into consideration or they can be disrupted as the tree grows.19 While many
cities, such as Toronto, have programs in place as a way to strategically control and
maintain the planting of commemorative trees, there are also private companies, groups,
and individuals that plant trees without taking the larger urban context into consideration.
Trees are culture before they are nature; people project their idea of what the tree
will commemorate and how the tree will serve as a commemorative tool before the tree is
planted.20 It is only after the commemorative planting that the tree takes on its natural
role, which at times can be beneficial to the community and at other times be destructive.
However, if done responsibly, a tree can serve as a living commemoration that has the
literal ability to keep the memory of an individual alive. As a living being, a
commemorative tree connects to the urban forest and contributes to the ecosystem of the
local community. In this way, a tree- as opposed to a statue, bench, or plaque- enables the
commemoration to connect to the community in a way that is very much active and alive.
The lifespan of trees also allows them to create a sense of heritage within the community,
adding a layer of commemoration that connects the person being commemorated to the
12
heritage of his or her community.
Endnotes
1. Toronto Parks, Forestry, and Recreation, Commemorative Tree and Bench Program,
http://www.toronto.ca/parks/pdf/engagement/commemorative_donation_policy.pdf.
Accessed on June 23, 2013.
2. Robert Archibald, “Memory and the Process of Public History,” The Public Historian,
Vol. 19, No. 2 (Spring, 1997), 62.
3. Max Page, “Uses of the Axe: Toward a Treeless New York,” in The Creative
Destruction of Manhattan, 1900-1940 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), 212.
4. Steven Chase, “Tories plan War of 1812 monument on Parliament Hill,” in The Globe
and Mail, Tuesday, Sep. 11 2012, 3:53 PM EDT,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-plan-war-of-1812-monument-onparliament-hill/article4536897/, Accessed on June 23, 2013.
5. Archibald, “Memory and the Process of Public History,” 62.
6. Peterborough Regional Health Centre, GreenUp Submission Document, (June 21,
2013).
7. Page, “Uses of the Axe: Toward a Treeless New York,” 212.
8. Page, “Uses of the Axe: Toward a Treeless New York,” 212.
9. Gail Murray, Peterborough Regional Health Centre Email to Sheryl Loucks, (June 24,
2013).
10. Simon Schama, Landscape and Memory, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995), 56.
11. Schama, Landscape and Memory, 56.
12. Toronto Parks, Forestry, and Recreation, Commemorative Donation Program,
http://www.toronto.ca/parks/pdf/engagement/commemorative_trees.pdf, Accessed on
June 23, 2013.
13. Toronto Parks, Forestry, and Recreation, Commemorative Tree and Bench Program.
14. Toronto Parks, Forestry, and Recreation, Commemorative Tree and Bench Program.
15. Peterborough GreenUp, Peterborough’s Treasured Tree Hunt, Brochure,
http://treasuredtreehunt.com/app_wp_tth/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Brochurev4.pdf,
Accessed on June 23, 2013.
16. Thomas J. Campanella, Republic of Shade: New England and the American Elm,
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 4.
17. Campanella, Republic of Shade: New England and the American Elm, 3.
18. Toronto Parks, Forestry, and Recreation, Commemorative Donation Program.
19. Joanna Dean, “Seeing Trees, Thinking Forests: Urban Forestry at the University of
Toronto in the 1960s,” in Method and Meaning in Canadian Environmental History, ed.
Alan MacEachern and William J. Turkel, (Toronto: Nelson Education, 2009), 237.
20. Schama, Landscape and Memory, 61.
Bibliography
13
Archibald, Robert. “Memory and the Process of Public History.” The Public Historian.
Vol. 19, No. 2 (Spring, 1997), 61-64.
Campanella, Thomas J. Republic of Shade: New England and the American Elm (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2003).
Chase, Steven. “Tories plan War of 1812 monument on Parliament Hill.” The Globe and
Mail. (Tuesday, Sep. 11 2012, 3:53 PM EDT).
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-plan-war-of-1812-monument-onparliament-hill/article4536897/
Dean, Joanna. “Seeing Trees, Thinking Forests: Urban Forestry at the University of
Toronto in the 1960s.” Method and Meaning in Canadian Environmental History, ed.
Murray, Gail. Peterborough Regional Health Centre Email to Sheryl Loucks. (June 24,
2013).
Page, Max. “Uses of the Axe: Toward a Treeless New York.” The Creative Destruction
of Manhattan, 1900-1940 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), 177-215.
Peterborough GreenUp. Peterborough’s Treasured Tree Hunt. Brochure.
http://treasuredtreehunt.com/app_wp_tth/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Brochurev4.pdf.
Peterborough Regional Health Centre. GreenUp Submission Document. (June 21, 2013).
Shama, Simon. Landscape and Memory. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995).
Toronto Parks, Forestry, and Recreation. Commemorative Tree and Bench Program.
http://www.toronto.ca/parks/pdf/engagement/commemorative_donation_policy.pdf.
Toronto Parks, Forestry, and Recreation. Commemorative Donation Program.
http://www.toronto.ca/parks/pdf/engagement/commemorative_trees.pdf.
14
The History of Sadleir House told Through its Trees
The history of Peterborough is partially told through its trees. A look at archived
photos from when the town was first being built shows that downtown Peterborough had
few, if any, trees.1 This is in stark contrast to the abundance of downtown trees that exist
today. This tells us that at various points people longed for and planted trees, either for
environmental or cultural purposes. In addition to the overall history of Peterborough’s
urban forest, each individual piece of property in Peterborough has its own unique history
based on its trees. For example, five photographs of 751 George Street, Peterborough,
taken at different points over the course of 108 years reveals an historical narrative rooted
in branches, blossoms, needles, and leaves. First owned by George A. Cox, who was a
Peterborough mayor and member of the Canadian Senate, the original property was
purportedly a treeless pasture lot.2 The property transformed first into a place of
residential luxury, then into a site for education and community development, and lastly
into a place representing a piece of Peterborough’s heritage. The narratives in the
photographs show us that the purpose and use of the trees on the property mirrored this
development.
The early history of 751 George St. is unique because Peterborough politicians
were the first successive owners. Cox sold the property to James Kendry, a Peterborough
mayor and Conservative Member of Parliament, who owned the property from 1892 to
1902.3 Kendry then sold the property to Liberal Member of Parliament, James Stratton,
who was also the owner of the Examiner newspaper.4
15
Notable local contractor J.C. Rutherford built the house at 751 George St. which
is now known as Sadleir House.5 The Queen Anne Revival style architecture was meant
to reflect the wealth and prestige of the Kendry family, and even the trees had their place
in this imagery, as seen in a 1905 photograph (Fig. 1) of what was then called
“Strathormond.” The intricacies of the architecture are clearly displayed and the house is
the focal point of the photo. The trees are tiny and neatly trimmed, and appear as accents
to the house. Yet there is significance in this; if the house was so grand all on its own,
why were trees planted at all? This narrative informs us of the importance of trees and
their ability to compliment even the most prestigious of houses.
751 George St. exchanged hands again in 1917, when Richard Sheehy bought the
property from Stratton’s widow. Sheehy was a contractor and his company was
responsible for a number of prominent Peterborough buildings, including the
Peterborough Armouries.6
An undated photograph (Fig. 2) of the property when it was under Sheehy’s
ownership shows a slight change in the narrative beyond the addition of the coach house
built in 1905 – the composition relegates the buildings more to the background and gives
the foreground to the property. Taken in winter, the evergreens are snow-capped and the
spindling branches of the deciduous trees are bare. The trees in this photograph are taller
than the ones in the 1905 picture, and this time they do not merely exist as accents, but as
something splendid in their own right. This photo encapsulates the progress from what
once was a barren lot to a property weighted with beautiful trees and fine architecture.
By the time Trent University purchased the property in 1963, some of the trees
had grown larger while others had disappeared altogether. At this time, the purpose of the
16
property underwent a dramatic change. The buildings would no longer serve as a place of
residence, but instead as one of Trent’s first colleges, Peter Robinson College.7 A link
connecting the main house to the coach house was designed by architect Ron Thom,
changing the style to reflect a blend of modern and historical architecture.
The trees, too, underwent a shift in purpose. A photograph (Fig. 3) from the Peter
Robinson era shows several students lounging in the grass, under the shade of the maples.
The leafy foliage makes up half of the photo. The trees have become a prominent and
important feature of the property; they provided shaded meeting areas where students
could interact and use the property outside of the College. In this way, the trees rivaled
the significance of the buildings by providing a unique student space.
In a much-protested decision, Trent sold Peter Robinson College in 2002.
However, the students recognized the value of the property and formed the Peter
Robinson Community and Student Association (PRCSA) in order to buy back 751
George St. from Trent. The PRCSA succeeded and took ownership in 2004.8
The building at 751 George St. is today called “Sadleir House” after P.R. College
Master, Richard Sadleir.9 The property no longer reflects wealth and prestige, but a place
for students and community. The narrative in current photos reflects this change; the
building is no longer the main focus.
A springtime photo (Fig. 4) shows the property awash in magnolia blossoms and
tiny green buds. The building is obscured by a crisscross of branches. The grassy, leafstrewn lawn is blanketed by the grey shadows of tree canopy, and the houses in the
distance peek out from behind a mix of maple, cedar, and pine that line a small hill. This
17
image is a far cry from what was once a piece of empty pastureland. Instead, what exists
today is an urban forest that dominates the landscape.
There is one final piece to the historical narrative of the trees at 751 George St.
On June 3, 2006 a lilac tree at the back entrance to the building was repurposed to be part
of a garden commemorating the marriage between John Muir and Yvonne Lai, two
current members of the board of directors for Sadleir House.10 A current photo (Fig. 5)
shows the lilacs in the centre of the garden, surrounded by plants and flowers. Sadleir
House received heritage designation in 2005, but the lilac tree is a piece of
commemorative heritage all on its own, separate from the building. The significant
heritage of 751 George St. extends beyond important individuals and historical
architecture; there is also living heritage that contributes a small but valuable part to
Peterborough’s urban forest.
751 George St. evolved over the years. The property transformed from pasture to
a place of residence to an educational institution to a place representing the Peterborough
community. The evolution of the trees on the property mirrored this development; the
trees went from being non-existent to becoming multi-purposed and heritage features. To
witness the rich history of 751 George St., one only needs to look no further than the
trees.
Endnotes
1
Peterborough and Museum Archives. Variety of photographs of downtown Peterborough
from late 19th and early 20th Century.
2
Paul Delaney, A Short History of the Former Occupants of 751 George Street, Trent
University, Peter Robinson College, 1967, 1.
18
3
“Kendry, James,” Parliament of Canada,
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=ca7c4a6e-291b-48738c2d-10152eff92b8&Language=E&Section=FederalExperience
4
Delaney, A Short History, 2.
5
Delaney, A Short History, 2.
6
Obituary (J.K. Sheehy), Trent University Archives, RG 7/2/7.
7
“First Two College Buildings of Distinctive Character in City,” Peterborough Examiner,
Monday October 19, 1964
8
“Sadleir House Timeline and History,” Peter Robinson Community and Student
Association, http://www.prcsa.ca/timeline.shtml
9
“Appointed Trent Vice President,” Trent University Archives, newspaper clippings,
March 13, 1969.
10
Commemorative Plaque, 751 George St. N. Peterborough, ON
Appendix of Photographs
Figure 1. Trent University Archives. 1905. Provided by Dwayne Collins.
Figure 2. Peterborough Museum and Archives. Undated. Ref. 2.3
Figure 3. Trent University Archives. Online Exhibit. Peter Robinson Exterior. Roy
Nicholis Photography. http://www.trentu.ca/admin/library/archives//ztphcol3.htm#cat5
Figure 4. Dwayne Collins. April 29, 2008.
Figure 5. Dwayne Collins. May 24, 2007.
Bibliography
“Appointed Trent Vice President.” Trent University Archives, newspaper clippings,
March 13, 1969.
Delaney, Paul. A Short History of the Former Occupants of 751 George Street. Trent
University, Peter Robinson College: 1967.
“First Two College Buildings of Distinctive Character in City.” Peterborough Examiner.
Monday October 19, 1964.
Obituary (J.K. Sheehy). Trent University Archives. RG 7/2/7.
Parliament of Canada. “Kendry, James”
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=ca7c4a6e-291b-48738c2d-10152eff92b8&Language=E&Section=FederalExperience. Accessed 06/18/13.
19
Peter Robinson Community and Student Association. “Sadleir House Timeline and
History.” http://www.prcsa.ca/timeline.shtml. Accessed 06/18/13.
Figure 1
20
Figure 2
21
Figure 3
22
Figure 4
23
Figure 5
24
Ontario’s Urban Forest History from 1946 to 2013
Ontario’s urban centres have experienced many cycles of tree planting and
removal, but the concept of the “urban forest” did not emerge until after the Second
World War.1 The post-war economic boom created a brief “liquidation period,” but this
was soon followed by a renewed desire to plant urban trees.2 However, the problem with
urban trees was that legislation regarding the management of urban forests did not exist.
Early legislation, such as the Trees Conservation Act of 1946, provided few resources for
municipalities to manage urban trees. However, two key events occurred in the 1960s
that created a defined concept of urban forestry and highlighted the need for federal
legislation. First, the onslaught of Dutch Elm Disease was an ecological crisis that deeply
impacted Ontario cities. The University of Toronto responded by enlisting the help of
forest pathologist Erik Jorgensen, who coined the phrase “urban forestry.”3 Second, the
environmental activism of the 1960s and 1970s led to the creation of several urban
“greening” initiatives and the development of urban forest organizations.4 This urban
forest momentum pushed organizations like Tree Canada into being, and the social and
grassroots initiatives regarding urban forestry in Ontario has been substantial. However,
government initiatives and legislation has not match social activism. Instead, present day
1
Joanna Dean, “Seeing Trees, Thinking Forests: Urban Forestry at the University of
Toronto in the 1960s,” Method and Meaning in Canadian Environmental History, ed.
Alan MacEachern and William J. Turkel (Toronto: Nelson Education, 2009), 237.
2
“History of Urban Forestry in Canada.” Tree Canada.
3
Dean, “Seeing Trees, Thinking Forests: Urban Forestry at the University of Toronto in
the 1960s,” 241.
4
Andrea Gunn, “The Trees of Queen’s: The Legacy of Project Green,” Queen's Alumni
Review, Vol.2 (Kingston, 2010).
25
legislation regarding urban forestry continues to place responsibilities on municipalities.5
The management of urban forests is enacted through an array of by-laws that vary from
municipality to municipality. Tree Canada, along with the Canadian Urban Forest
Network, has called upon the Canadian government to create a Federal urban forest
strategy so that Canada’s urban forests can be bettered managed and maintained.6 This
essay examines Ontario’s urban forest history from the period following the Second
World War to present day and argues that the practice of managing urban forestry
through by-laws needs to be replaced with legislation that clearly defines federal and
provincial urban forest strategies.
Legislation regarding the management of urban trees has been insufficient since
the beginning of the Second World War. The Canadian government passed the Trees
Conservation Act in 1946 in order to prevent the clearing and over-cutting of trees, but
the legislation was largely aimed at protecting rural woodlands.7 The act failed to enable
cities and towns to regulate tree cutting because there was little incentive, both culturally
and economically, for urban and suburban communities to regulate and manage tree
cutting.8 On the contrary, during this time period trees and forests were seen as an
impediment to urban and economic development.9 Woodlands were liquidated for
industrial forestry purposes and also to make way for the post-war housing expansion that
5
Oliver Reichl, “The Protection of Trees: The Vast & Unwieldy Topic of Bylaws,” (The
International Society of Arboriculture, 2012).
6
Canadian Urban Forest Strategy: 2013-2018, Canadian Urban Forest Network, (Tree
Canada, 2013), 2.
7
“Tree By-Law Information Package,” (Ontario Urban Forest Council, 2011), 2.
8
Mike Rosen, and Andy Kenney, “Urban Forest Trends in Canada,” (2003).
9
Rosen and Kenney, “Urban Forest Trends in Canada.”
26
was branching out of cities.10 This steep contrast between the goals of the Trees
Conservation Act and the post-war liquidation of woodlands shows that tree legislation
carried little weight from the outset. The act itself was designed to give municipalities the
tools to regulate tree cutting, but did not have a mandatory federal policy that
municipalities had to follow.11 The same type of legislation appeared in the 1950 Trees
Act, and did not advance the management of urban trees.12 Thus, while some
municipalities, such as Wellington County, passed by-laws to control tree cutting, most
municipalities experienced the post-war housing expansion with little regard for trees.13
The very design of post-war urban and suburban expansion was unfriendly to the
creation of sustainable urban forests. Streets were rarely designed with trees in mind,
which meant there was little to no space for planting street trees without interfering with
power and sewage lines.14 A survey of six Southern Ontario municipalities concluded
that:
Abutting housing was typical of post World War II housing within
Southern Ontario, consisting of singlefamily, contiguous and detached, or
semi-detached, with backyards. Gross housing densities were between 5
and 19 houses per hectare.15
10
12
“Tree By-Law Information Package,” 2.
13
“Tree By-Law Information Package,” 2.
14
15
Wendy McWilliam, et al, “Assessing the Degradation Effects of Local Residents on
Urban Forests in Ontario, Canada,” Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. Vol. 36.6 (2010),
254
11
27
The density of suburban housing left little space for trees. As well, residential factors,
such as sewage drainage, recreational activities, and even compost disposal affected
bordering woodlands.16 The close proximity of woodlands to housing developments
meant that invasive tree species planted in residential areas could affect nearby wildlife
and native trees. These factors polluted sensitive ecosystems and created problems for
both the woodlands and urban forests, since the two forest types were interconnected.17
Deforestation was a key problem, but the habitats of birds and mammals were also
affected.18
Another effect of post-war expansion was the environmental degradation of city
parks. For example, Toronto’s High Park was meant to be a place of natural and
undeveloped forest within the city.19 However, in the 1950s and 1960s, the park suffered
from urban encroachment as houses were built alongside the park’s borders.20
Recreational facilities and new roads were built within the park, which meant a loss of
tree space and natural habitat for wildlife.21 Urban and suburban development thus
affected forests both inside and outside municipal boundaries.
When trees were planted, there was little consideration for choosing native tree
species over non-native tree species and monoculture plantings were popular.22 For
16
McWilliam, et al, “Assessing the Degradation Effects of Local Residents on Urban
Forests in Ontario, Canada,” 253.
17
18
19
Joanna, Kidd, et al, “High Park: Restoring a Jewel of Toronto’s Park System,” Toronto
Parks, Forestry and Recreation Division, (Toronto, 2008), 1.
20
Kidd, et al, “High Park: Restoring a Jewel of Toronto’s Park System,” 6.
21
Kidd, et al, “High Park: Restoring a Jewel of Toronto’s Park System,” 6.
22
28
example, Ottawa planted numerous pink crab apple trees in the 1960s as a cultural
imitation of Washington’s cherry trees.23 In Toronto, the flowering Honeylocust tree was
popular in the 1950s and early 1960s, but this non-native tree species was also attractive
to a damaging pest called the honeylocust tree bug.24 These examples demonstrate that
laws regarding trees were not successful in creating sustainable urban forests. However,
while there was a lack of consideration for the environmental impact of non-native
species, the planting of ornamental trees at least signified a cultural shift regarding urban
trees. The desire to plant trees, regardless of the reason, was a move away from the
liquidation phase and the perception that trees clashed with urban and suburban
development.
Unfortunately, urban residents of Southern Ontario soon experienced a harsh
environmental outcome of monoculture tree planting. Urban trees had been planted for
decoration and to provide shade; there was cultural attachment to these trees, particularly
the elm. In The Republic of Shade, Thomas Campanella describes the universal appeal of
a street shaded by elms,
The universal appeal of Elm Street- “one of the glories of world
urbanism,” as the urbanist Andres Duany put it - was not only due to the
splendid visual and spatial effects of the flanking trees, but because Elm
Street delivered the elusive ideal of... the countryside in the town.25
23
the 1960s,” 237.
24
“Honeylocust Plant Bug and Leaf Hoppers,” Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation
Division, (Toronto, 2010).
25
Thomas Campanella, Republic of Shade: New England and the American Elm. (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 2.
29
When Dutch Elm Disease hit Southern Ontario, its effects were devastating.
Cities tended to have a large number of elms as street and shade trees. For example, in
the 1960s, ten percent of all street trees in Toronto were elms.26 In addition, elms were
typically planted close together in long rows, enabling the disease to be easily spread.27
The monoculture style of street trees meant that some cities lost most of their tree canopy
to Dutch Elm Disease.28
The Ontario government relegated the management of Dutch Elm Disease to
individual municipalities because elm was a non-native species and technically fell under
the Weeds Act, which meant the elm was not covered under forestry legislation.29
However, the disease proved difficult to control because municipalities were not
equipped with urban forest management protocols.30 Thus, Dutch Elm Disease became a
catalyst that created an environmental concept of urban forestry.
As Ontario’s largest city, Toronto was an epicenter for the disease. Fortunately,
the University of Toronto had a forest pathology specialist amongst its faculty. Erik
Jorgensen was recruited by the Dean of Forestry to find a solution to the spread of Dutch
Elm Disease on the university's campus.31 Jorgensen recommended the standard practice
of sanitation, as well as the use of the chemical DDT, which would kill the beetles that
26
the 1960s,”240
27
the 1960s,” 240.
28
the 1960s,” 240.
29
Andy Kenney, “Erik Jorgensen- Canada’s First Urban Forester.” Urban Forests
Newsletter. Vol. 1.2 (Toronto: Forest History Society of Ontario, Fall 2010), 3.
30
the 1960s,” 241.
31
the 1960s,” 241.
30
spread the disease.32 However, preventing the spread of Dutch Elm Disease could not be
maintained simply by the management of the university’s trees; the interconnectedness of
the urban forest meant that the municipality had to be involved.
Jorgensen, along with Brigadier J.F. Westhead who was the university
superintendent, lobbied for participation from Toronto municipalities and established the
Dutch Elm Disease Control Committee for Metro Toronto and Region in 1962.33 The
committee approved funding and space for Canada’s first Shade Tree Research
Laboratory, and in 1966 the university provided steady funding for the program.34 As
well, an active community organization emerged out of the committee. In 1964 the
Ontario Shade Tree Council was formed and its membership included “arborists,
foresters, landscape architects, nurserymen, planners, municipalities, conservation
authorities,” and members of the public.35 Thus, an effect of Dutch Elm Disease was the
creation of an urban forestry organization in Toronto.
Jorgensen’s research and activism attracted graduate students from the Faculty of
Forestry and in 1965 a student named Bill Morsink approached Jorgensen about creating
a program centered around the city trees of Toronto.36 This led Jorgensen to coin the term
“urban forestry” as a title for Morsink’s program.37 Jorgensen described urban forestry as,
32
the 1960s,” 241.
33
the 1960s,” 242.
34
the 1960s,” 242.
35
“About Us,” Ontario Urban Forest Council.
36
Mike Rosen, “Bill Morsink- Ontario’s Urban Forest Pioneer,” Urban Forests
Newsletter, Vol. 1.2 (Toronto: Forest History Society of Ontario, Fall 2010), 5.
37
Rosen, “Bill Morsink- Ontario’s Urban Forest Pioneer,” 5.
31
A specialized branch of forestry that has as its objectives the cultivation
and management of trees for their present and potential contribution to the
physiological, sociological and economic well-being of urban society.
These contributions include the over-all ameliorating effect of trees on
their environment, as well as their recreational and general amenity
value.38
Jorgensen’s definition, Morsink’s urban forestry program, and the Ontario Shade Tree
Council, created a new context for thinking about city trees.39
The creation of the Shade Tree Laboratory and the Ontario Shade Tree Council
were certainly steps in the right direction. However, the very reason for their existence
demonstrates that legislation regarding urban trees was insufficient. The government did
not step in to combat Dutch Elm Disease. Rather, the responsibility was placed on
university faculty and members of Toronto municipalities. Furthermore, the Ontario
Shade Tree Council was ill-equipped for managing the aftermath of the disease. For
example, the Norway maple was planted to replace the canopy that was lost by the
diseased elms, but these trees came with their own host of problems.40 The city of
Toronto now admits that planting Norway maples was simply a repeat of the mistake the
city made with the elms.
In Toronto, many of these trees were replaced with Norway maple, which
at the time was considered a hardy, fast-growing urban shade tree. This
species has proven to be very invasive and damaging to ravines and
38
Rosen, “Bill Morsink- Ontario’s Urban Forest Pioneer,” 5.
the 1960s,” 245.
40
“Every Tree Counts: A Portrait of Toronto’s Urban Forest,” Toronto Parks, Forestry
and Recreation Division, 33.
39
32
natural areas and with some exceptions, is rarely planted on city property
anymore.41
Therefore, while combating Dutch Elm Disease may have created a concept of the urban
forest, cities failed to learn from the errors of the past. Again, there was no cohesive
protocol for planting and managing city trees, so essentially organizations like the
Ontario Shade Tree Council were operating through trial and error methods.
This method of trial and error was also evident in Jorgensen’s methods for
fighting Dutch Elm Disease. Jorgensen recommend spraying the trees with a toxic
chemical called DDT.42 While this chemical efficiently killed the elm bark beetle, it also
had dire consequences for other wildlife. Despite public concerns about the use of this
chemical, the Canadian government did not outline procedures for using DDT and
decisions for using this chemical were left to the discretion of municipalities.43 It was not
until Rachel Carson released the book Silent Spring that municipalities halted the use of
DDT. In Silent Spring, Carson outlined the dangerous impact of DDT on the urban
ecosystem,
Spraying tends to be repetitive, and a single exposure from which the
wildlife populations might have a chance to recover is a rarity. What
usually results is a poisoned environment, a lethal trap in which not only
the resident populations succumb but those who come in as migrants as
well.44
41
“Every Tree Counts: A Portrait of Toronto’s Urban Forest,” 33.
the 1960s,” 245.
43
the 1960s,” 245.
44
Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, (New York: Mariner Books, 2002), 87.
42
33
Many municipalities stopped using DDT after Silent Spring was published, but Jorgensen
lobbied for the use of DDT until the late 1960s.45 Therefore, while Dutch Elm Disease
was a reminded of the interconnectedness of the urban ecosystem, the use of destructive
methods continued because there was no unified protocol in place for managing urban
trees.
The lack of legislation regarding urban trees also appeared as a problem within
the environmental activism that was popular in the 1960s and 1970s. At the same time as
Jorgensen and his peers were combating the Dutch Elm Disease crisis, social activism
was putting environmental issues on the political agenda.46 The eco-movement was a
counter movement, aimed at rectifying environmental problems, and the government’s
involvement was largely reactionary instead of proactive.47 For example, activism
included the concept of “greening” urban spaces, but this was mostly left up to individual
groups and organizations.48 However, with no framework to use as guidance, good
intentions often turned out to be problematic.
An example of the urban greening concept and its disappointing result is Queen’s
University’s 1975 implementation of “Project Green.” The Queen’s campus was hit with
45
the 1960s,” 246.
46
Magnus Bostrom. “Environmental Organisations in New Forms of Political
Participation: Ecological Modernisation and the Making of Voluntary Rules,”
Environmental Values, Vol. 12 (Stockholm: The White Horse Press, 2003), 175.
47
Bostrom. “Environmental Organisations in New Forms of Political Participation:
Ecological Modernisation and the Making of Voluntary Rules,” 177.
48
Andrea Gunn, “The Trees of Queen’s: The Legacy of Project Green,” Queen's Alumni
Review, Vol.2 (Kingston, 2010).
34
Dutch Elm Disease in the late 1960s and by 1975 only four elms were left.49 Students
took up the initiative to re-green their campus. They voted to contribute one dollar of
their activity fees for five years to Project Green, which would provide new trees, as well
as tree planters, to restore Queen’s landscape.50 The two most popular varieties of the
new trees were crabapple and black spruce.51 Unfortunately, the crabapple trees were not
hardy enough for the campus environment and failed to thrive and of the 19 black spruces
that were planted, only one survived.52 Student activists had their intentions in the right
places, but lacked the knowledge and guidance to make the project successful.
Despite the new concept of urban forestry created by the Dutch Elm Disease crisis
and environmental activism, the state of legislation regarding urban trees remained
stagnant. In 1978, the Canadian Forestry Service issued a report on urban tree and forest
legislation in Ontario. They concluded,
Government, unless prodded and pressured to undertake review and
reform, is reluctant to move boldly or quickly to correct abuses where the
issues have low political profiles. The gradual decline in both quantity and
quality of trees, shrubs and associated vegetation along our streets and in
our parks and wildlands is difficult to assess and measure. Consequently,
few individuals or groups speak for trees, and even fewer are heard.53
At the time this document was released, little had changed since the Trees Act (1950),
which gave municipalities the power to issue tree planting and removal by-laws but
49
Gunn, “The Trees of Queen’s: The Legacy of Project Green.”
Gunn, “The Trees of Queen’s: The Legacy of Project Green,”
51
52
53
J.W. Anderson, and J. Swaigon, Urban Tree and Forest Legislation in Ontario,
(Saulte. Ste. Marie: Canadian Forestry Service, 1978), preface.
50
35
offered little else in the way of urban forest management.54 In reference to the momentum
created by the Ontario Shade Tree Council, the Canadian Forestry Service explained,
“institutional change has not kept pace with the change in attitudes towards trees in urban
and near-urban areas.”55
Institutional change continued to not keep pace. Instead, the lack of legislation
was supplemented by other means for managing urban forests. Municipalities created an
array of by-laws throughout the 1980s and municipal forestry departments expanded.56
However, urban forest education and management was mostly provided by organizations.
For example, the Canadian Forestry Service created and funded the National Community
Tree Foundation in 1992 as a method of creating awareness and enabling public
outreach.57 The organization held the first Canadian Urban Forest Conference in
Winnipeg in 1993, and conferences continued to be held annually.58 The National
Community Tree Foundation eventually became fully corporate sponsored and was
renamed “Tree Canada” in 2007.59
Unfortunately, despite recommendations issued by the Canadian Forestry Service
and despite actions taken by Tree Canada, legislation that included a distinct definition
for urban forestry did not emerge until the Professional Foresters Act in 2000.60 The act
defines urban forests as “tree-dominated vegetation and related features found within an
54
Anderson, and Swaigon, Urban Tree and Forest Legislation in Ontario, 10.
Anderson, and Swaigon, Urban Tree and Forest Legislation in Ontario, 13.
56
“Compendium of Best Management Practices for Canadian Urban Forests,” Canadian
Urban Forest Network, (Tree Canada, 2006).
55
57
“History: 1992 to 2006.” Tree Canada.
59
60
“Compendium of Best Management Practices for Canadian Urban Forests.”
58
36
urban area and includes woodlots, plantations, shade trees, and fields in various stages of
succession, wetland and riparian areas.”61 The act provides a specialized urban forestry
field within the forestry sector and empowers registered foresters with guidelines for
managing urban forests.62 However, legislation is largely enacted at the municipal level,
which means that urban forest management practices vary across municipalities despite
provisions outlined in the Professional Foresters Act.63
In fact, the Municipal Act (2001) is the legislation that provides municipalities
with the power to create and enact by-laws, not the Professional Foresters Act.64 As well,
until the 2001 revisions, municipalities with populations less than 10,000 could not
regulate tree cutting.65 The creation of by-laws provides municipalities with tools for
managing urban forests, but by-laws do not create an urban forest strategy. Problems with
by-laws include miscommunication within and between municipalities, an unwillingness
to be involved in disputes over shared trees, how to effectively determine tree
measurement, lack of funds, lack of private tree by-laws, and lack of manpower to
enforce by-laws.66 As well, differing management practices, despite the close proximity
of many municipalities, ignores the interconnectedness of urban forests.67
61
Professional Foresters Act 2000. Service Ontario E-Laws.
62
Professional Foresters Act 2000. Service Ontario E-Laws.
63
“Compendium of Best Management Practices for Canadian Urban Forests.”
Reichl, “The Protection of Trees: The Vast & Unwieldy Topic of Bylaws.”
65
“Tree By-Law Information Package.” (Ontario Urban Forest Council, 2011), 2.
66
Reichl, “The Protection of Trees: The Vast & Unwieldy Topic of Bylaws.”
67
Michael Campbell, “The impact of habitat characteristics on bird presence and the
implications for wildlife management in the environs of Ottawa, Canada,” Urban
Forestry & Urban Greening. Vol. 8 (Kamloops: Thompson Rivers University, 2009), 88.
64
37
Over the past decade, the inefficiency of by-laws, and the increased activism from
groups such as Tree Canada, has increased action for incorporating an urban forest
strategy into government legislation. For example, the 2003-2008 iteration of Canada’s
National Forest Strategy included a section on urban forests.68 A document that recently
emerged in 2013 has the potential to create concrete urban forest legislation. Tree Canada
and the Canadian Urban Forest Network, which was established in 2004, have created a
Canadian Urban Forest Strategy. The document outlines and analyzes the current
problems facing urban forests, such as monoculture practices, invasive species, lack of
growing space, and contaminated soil.69 Some of these problems seem surprising,
considering they were the same ones that existed in the 1960s when the concept of urban
forestry was defined. However, the persistence of these problems is a clear argument that
cohesive legislation is needed.
Some of the proposed idea in the document include the development of a
communication plan that can be used between municipalities and different levels of
government, educational kits, funding initiatives, scientific research specifically aimed at
urban forestry, the creation of a national centre for urban forestry research, and postsecondary urban forestry programs.70 The proposals are aimed at creating an urban forest
strategy; a specific Canadian urban forest strategy has not yet been determined. However,
one of the key stipulations to achieve more involvement from the federal government,
including legislation, so that the responsibility for managing urban forests does not rest
solely on the shoulders of municipalities.
68
Canadian Urban Forest Strategy: 2013-2018, Canadian Urban Forest Network, (Tree
Canada, 2013), 2.
69
Canadian Urban Forest Strategy: 2013-2018, 3-6.
70
Canadian Urban Forest Strategy: 2013-2018, 6-10.
38
Prior to the Second World War there was little legislation regarding trees within
an urban context and the process of cutting and planting city trees was widely
unregulated. Unfortunately, the momentum caused by the creation of the Ontario Shade
Tree Council in 1964 and the Urban Forestry Program in 1973 did not lead to effective
urban forest legislation. While these may be substantial developments considering the
proximity of the liquidation phase only decades before, the unfortunate reality is that
urban forest movements, legislation, and programs failed to create responsible urban
forest management. Social activism led to the creation of Tree Canada Foundation in
1992, but the overall focus continues to be community education and responsibility.71
The practice of governing from a distance means that the management of urban
forests is left to individual municipalities, despite the interconnectedness of urban
ecosystems. Due to a lack of funding, urban forestry tends to be low on the priority list
for municipalities, which means that the responsibility of creating by-laws is pushed onto
community members and organizations.72 The result is a haphazard array of by-laws that
hold no real weight and which differ from municipality to municipality. While some
municipalities have created ecologically successful urban forest programs, there are many
ecological problems stemming from a lack of urban forest management.73 The mishmash
of urban forestry by-laws is an inefficient way to manage urban forests and clearly
defined provincial and federal legislation is needed in order to prevent another
environmental crisis, like the spread of Dutch Elm Disease that occurred in the 1960s.
71
Rosen, and Kenney, “Urban Forest Trends in Canada.”
73
72
39
Hopefully, the protocols outlined in the 2013 Canadian Urban Forest Strategy will lead to
the creation of clearly defined urban forest legislation. If not, the persistence of problems
that have existed since the Second World War will surely continue to plague Ontario’s
urban forests.
Bibliography
“About Us.” Ontario Urban Forest Council. http://www.oufc.org/about-us/
Anderson, J.W., and Swaigon, J. Urban Tree and Forest Legislation in Ontario. (Saulte.
Ste. Marie: Canadian Forestry Service, 1978).
http://www.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/pubwarehouse/pdfs/8958.pdf.
Bostrom, Magnus. “Environmental Organisations in New Forms of Political
Participation: Ecological Modernisation and the Making of Voluntary Rules.”
Environmental Values. Vol. 12 (Stockholm: The White Horse Press, 2003), 175–93.
Campanella, Thomas. Republic of Shade: New England and the American Elm. (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2003).
Campbell, Michael. “The impact of habitat characteristics on bird presence and the
implications for wildlife management in the environs of Ottawa, Canada.” Urban
Forestry & Urban Greening. Vol. 8 (Kamloops: Thompson Rivers University, 2009),
87–95.
Canadian Urban Forest Strategy: 2013-2018. Canadian Urban Forest Network. (Tree
Canada, 2013). http://www.tcffca.ca/programs/urbanforestry/cufn/resources/pages/files/CUFS_July20_2012.pdf
Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. (New York: Mariner Books, 2002).
“Compendium of Best Management Practices for Canadian Urban Forests.” Canadian
Urban Forest Network. (Tree Canada, 2006).
Dean, Joanna. “Seeing Trees, Thinking Forests: Urban Forestry at the University of
Toronto in the 1960s.” Method and Meaning in Canadian Environmental History, ed.
40
“Every Tree Counts: A Portrait of Toronto’s Urban Forest.” Toronto Parks, Forestry and
Recreation Division. http://www.sfu.ca/grow/science/resources/1304545703.pdf.
Gunn, Andrea. “The Trees of Queen’s: The Legacy of Project Green.” Queen's Alumni
Review. Vol.2 (Kingston, 2010). http://queensu.ca/news/alumnireview/trees-queenslegacy-project-green.
“History: 1992 to 2006.” Tree Canada. http://treecanada.ca/en/about-us/history/.
“History of Urban Forestry in Canada.” Tree Canada.
http://treecanada.ca/en/programs/urban-forests/history-urban-forestry-canada/
“Honeylocust Plant Bug and Leaf Hoppers.” Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation
Division (Toronto, 2010).
http://www.toronto.ca/trees/pdfs/factsheets/Honey_locust_Plant_Bug_and_Leafhoppers_
fs.pdf.
Kenney, Andy. “Erik Jorgensen- Canada’s First Urban Forester.” Urban Forests
Newsletter. Vol. 1.2 (Toronto: Forest History Society of Ontario, Fall 2010), 3-4.
Kidd, Joanna, et al. “High Park: Restoring a Jewel of Toronto’s Park System.” Toronto
Parks, Forestry and Recreation Division. (Toronto, 2008).
http://www.toronto.ca/trees/pdfs/HighParkRestoration.pdf.
McWilliam, Wendy, et al. “Assessing the Degradation Effects of Local Residents on
Urban Forests in Ontario, Canada.” Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. Vol. 36.6 (2010),
253-260.
Professional Foresters Act 2000. Service Ontario E-Laws. Last amendment: 2009, c. 33,
Sched. 22, s. 8.
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_00p18_e.htm.
Reichl, Oliver. “The Protection of Trees: The Vast & Unwieldy Topic of Bylaws.” (The
International Society of Arboriculture, 2012).
http://www.isaontario.com/content/protection-trees-vast-unwieldy-topic-bylaws.
Rosen, Mike. “Bill Morsink- Ontario’s Urban Forest Pioneer.” Urban Forests Newsletter.
Vol. 1.2 (Toronto: Forest History Society of Ontario, Fall 2010), 5-6.
Rosen, Mike, and Kenney, Andy. “Urban Forest Trends in Canada.” Unedited version.
(2003) http://www.fao.org/docrep/ARTICLE/WFC/XII/0752-B1.HTM
41
“Tree By-Law Information Package.” (Ontario Urban Forest Council, 2011).
http://www.oufc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/By-law-Information-Package-January7-2011.pdf.
42
Discovering Peterborough’s Heritage Trees and Urban Forest
All volunteers, as well as the Steering Committee, contributed input on the layout,
content, and design of the book. Below is an early concept for the structure of the book.
Book Content Structure
Front Matter
Page
End paper – fly leaf
Title Page –
pg 2-3
Copyright –
pg 4
Table of Contents
pgs 5-7
Acknowledgments
pgs 8 -9
Guest Foreward
pgs 10-11
Map
pgs 12-13
Note: formal chapter titles will not be decided till after draft chapter is written, these are
just to denote area of chapter. Trees and locations noted are not necessarily all stories,
some may be just photos based on what works out to be best stories and length
requirements.
Introduction – Chapter 1
Photo Page
14
Chapter Opener
15
Chapter
16 – 24
Start off with some local history and how it impacted the current urban forest. Explain
how the book is structured and how to use the book. Definitions of what is an urban tree?
What is an urban forest? Discuss the Value of a tree – our definition of a heritage tree
A short summary of history of Peterborough area ecology, and pre-settlement, people’s
impact – in here as part of natural history we’ll mention the oldest tree found in Burnham
Prov Park, and use a photo, what is here now, and summary of some general data from
tree inventories.
43
Chapter 2 – Downtown or central area
Photo Page
25
Chapter Opener
26
- bit of history on founding of town site, define and layout area that is being discussed,
info on what’s there, info on commemorative trees in this area, impact of industrial
revolution on trees, streetscapes
- this chapter is about area between Lansdowne to Parkhill and south of Monaghan to the
river
- Red Cedar, Howson House, 548 Aylmer street – this is heritage house, story told by 95
yr old
- Cemeteries this will be about general practices with highlighted trees and information
from Little Lake and St. Peter’s cemetery. Little Lake Cemetery also has the 2009
landmark winner tree.
- fact box with some info on treasured trees.
Guest Writer
Suggested walking tour
Chapter 3 – East City vs East End
Photo Page
Chapter Opener – this area is defined as generally between Lansdowne and Parkhill and
Television Road
- what makes East City distinctive, description of what’s generally in other parts of East
End, some info from three tree surveys done in this chunk of city, impact of sewer line
updates and other above and below ground infrastructure. Development of parks in the
city
- shot of construction zone and tree stumps as a threat that faces trees
- Ecology Park and Beavermede
- Ginkgo, 188 Douro St
44
- Nicholls Oval trees
- Trent Locks/Canal cheery trees, and others that line canal
Guest Writer
- suggested walking tour
Chapter 4 – South End
Photo page
Chapter opener – this area is roughly south of Lansdowne to Hwy 115 with the Parkway
as western border
- lots of war time houses in this area, a bit about nature of neighbourhood, note on river
and trees along shore, just a note it’s also known as Crawford Grove some info on where
that name came from. Some tree survey info, note there’s a pollution issue from previous
plant in that area as ex of threat. Discussion of building for cars and how trees became
more important with less space.
- Corrigan Hill, w tree (at top of Corrigan Hill Road, there is a little turn around a park
and the tree faces east towards Ashburnham drive)
- Manitoba Maple, Crawford Place, survivor tree winner 2012
- treasured tree fact box list
Guest writers
Chapter 5 – west end
Photo Page
Chapter opener – for purpose of book we are roughly saying this is area west of
Monaghan and south of Parkhill, with the Parkway from 115 to Lansdowne as the eastern
border
- talk about some of the trends that have affected urban tree plantings in old west end vs
new west end,
Tree survey info, how the ecology has changed with dramatically different land uses in
area
45
- global arrivals of people and trees
- Kawartha Golf and Country Club
- Guest writer
- old family farm, traditional sugar maples and evergreen windbreaks, now hedged in by
suburbs
- trees and health, and new hospital site
- Treasured trees
Guest writers
Chapter 6 – North End
Photo Page
Chapter Opener – area is around Parkhill and then north including river up to Trent
- impacts of modern green planning on tree plantings, urban forest, impact of trees on
property values
- Jackson Park and hunt for the marker tree story, white pine were noted in 2009 as most
significant grove of trees
- Inverlea Park
- Teacher’s College area, tree survey info, story on collection of trees in this
neighbourhood,
Treasured Trees
Guest Writer
Chapter 7 – In memory of...
Photo page –
Chapter Opener
46
- notes on trees we’ve lost elms and what we’ll lose ash trees
- closing notes on how to protect the trees we have so that they too don’t become in
memory of before their natural life cycle ends
- mention of urban forest management plan, Kawartha Natural Connections work, and
seed propagation program by GreenUP
Guest writer
End Matter
Endnotes instead of footnotes
Selected bibliography
Glossary
Index
About the Authors
Photo Credits and permissions information
Volunteer Thank you.
47
Steering Committee Meetings
Members of the Steering Committee and volunteers met everything month to coordinate
various aspects of the heritage tree book project. The meetings mostly consisted of voting
on design concepts, stories, and photographs. Below is an example of a meeting agenda.
Steering Committee May Meeting Agenda
I.
Quick review and approval of last meeting’s minutes, they were
distributed in April.
II.
Sheryl Loucks’ report
a. Monthly status
b. Update on goals for next month
III.
Budget update
a. Budget overview
b. Printing discussion
c. Fundraising – for print only or design as well
d. Design discussion
IV.
Content General discussion
a. Sheryl to present for discussion city break down
b. Book title – bring your ideas
V.
Volunteer update – introduction of Jasmine
VI.
Book Launch – general discussion
VII.
Other business
a. Upcoming events, programming ideas
b. Any other business
VIII. Calendar – book the June meeting date
IX.
Adjournment
48
Call for Photography Submissions
The heritage tree book will be very visual and will include approximately 200
photographs. One of my tasks was finding and emailing photographers for photo
submissions. This is the standard call for submissions form:
GreenUP is currently looking for photographs for a new book about the city of
Peterborough’s trees and urban forest. This email will explain what kinds of images we
are seeking for this non-profit project funded by the Ontario Trillium Foundation. For
further information about this book or about possible compensation, please contact editor
Sheryl Loucks at [email protected]. Please feel free to pass on this email to
your networks.
The book will be a seven-chapter, 200-page, approx. 8 by 10, full colour glossy with
about 50% photos. The images in the book will tell the story from a variety of
perspectives of how people, animals and birds live with trees, and show some of the
threats that face our trees like construction, storms, disease, invasive species and traffic.
The goal is to collect striking images that capture not just the beauty and majesty of some
of our heritage trees but how all of the trees are an integral part of our daily lives in this
city. We are hoping to add some images to the mix that show movement and intriguing
compositions beyond standard static images. We also welcome the submission of art,
digital images for example that may have been digitally manipulated to present an idea.
The ambition is to wow and educate readers.
While we welcome pictures in the landscape tradition such as sunsets, morning mists,
parks in fall colour glory, we are also looking for interesting angles, close-ups,
streetscapes (with or without wires, we actually need to show how trees grow into wires),
commercial settings with trees, moody pictures, storm shots, night shots, people,
wildlife/children in trees, and trees that have man-made marks on them including crude
carving of modern initials etc.
We are particularly looking for trees in spring blossom shots, winter and fall shots.
Images we need: these are only a few examples, we welcome your other creative
compositions:
- recent (or past) ice storm photos, lightning storms, heavy rains
- tree photos from the south end, anywhere south of Lansdowne.
- flood shots from 2004 that feature tree lined streets or individual trees – once again the
trees do not have to necessarily be the primary focus of the picture as long as they are
clearly depicted.
- residential neighbourhood streets from the past – any decade. Two weeks ago on
49
Walker Ave, in the east end, mature trees were removed for a sewer line project so a
photo of this street a mere month ago is now an historic record of what used to be here.
- elms, if anyone has colour photographs of Peterborough streets formerly lined with elms
- tree forts
- picnic scenes underneath trees or other activities
- fun shots of kids/animals playing in leaves, hanging from branches etc
- maple syrup tapping in town, whether recently or in the past
- wildlife shots of nests, burrows, birds, raccoons, chipmunks, squirrels etc
- damaged trees, pictures that show scars from lightning strikes, car hits, disease
- fruit and other trees in bloom, as well as shots of people picking fruits or nuts
-- shots from any of the city’s parks, particularly in winter and fall, and if shots are just of
trees that is fine but if shots show sporting events happening in the background, people
hiking or biking, dog walking those are great as well.
- older black and white images that may be in family collections of trees that may be
small in the photo but are currently living large species.
- snapshots from previous decades of streets where we could use them as a small inset, in
a larger picture of what the street looks like today, particularly in older areas of the city.
The chapters will be based on what readers can find in the different parts of the city,
downtown, east city/east end, the central or old west end area, west end, north and south
ends. The final chapter will be about trees that have been lost and may be giant stumps,
or completely lost.
The focus of the book is on older trees, our “heritage trees” which does not necessarily
mean large trees. Some species of trees do not grow large trunks like cedars, nor do some
trees every reach the towering heights of species like white pine. So what is a heritage
tree? Heritage trees are exceptional specimens that represent the cultural or ecological
history of the city of Peterborough. These trees are important because of their age, size,
form, rarity, prominence, location, culture, genetics, and history. For a list of known
heritage trees in the city please contact Sheryl Loucks. But heritage trees are one aspect
of the book, we are interested in photos of any aspect of our urban forest.
We are also starting to organize a fun photo exhibit day at Ecology Park, likely for
August. If you would like to participate or be kept informed about this program, please
let us know.
50
Note: photographers retain copyright to their images, the project is seeking one time
rights to reproduce the image for the book unless otherwise negotiated.
We would prefer photos that feature children’s faces, that parental permission is given to
publish those images. If you collect a name and phone number, we will clear the
permission.
Links to Potential Photographers and Photographs
Examples of the types of photography GreenUp solicited:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/36124594@N08/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/martinchphoto/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/shezamm/sets/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sadleirhouse
51
Interviews and Oral History
GreenUp hosted a “Treasured Tree Hunt” in 2009 and again in 2012. People nominated
and submitted stories about heritage and interesting trees in Peterborough. One of my
roles was to facilitate communication between people who had submitted stories and
GreenUp. There was a list of standard questions to ask when we received a new
submission.
Data Collection Questions for Beneath the Canopy book
The 2013 GreenUP book project, tentatively titled Beneath the Canopy: Peterborough’s
Urban Forest and Heritage Trees, has three key goals. One, educate the public about the
ecological and historical value of the trees in their urban forest and about efforts to
preserve, protect and grow the urban forest. Two, present to the public some of the stories
collected through urban tree surveys, and two Treasured Tree Hunts. Three, to raise
awareness about the city’s urban forest management plan to try to garner more public
support, political support for the plan. This presents an opportunity for a range of
questions based on what kind of information is being collected. The following questions
are not the more scientific questions about tree ecology/biology but rather the social side
of the equation, asking local residents about their trees so we can share slices of history
and some information about what exists here in the city.
Questions:
Do you have any memories of trees within the City of Peterborough from your past?
Did you grow up in this city? Have you seen a noticeable change in the makeup of the trees
that line the streets or in the parks? Do you have any childhood memories of playing in trees
that you would be willing to share?
Have you ever harvested or gleaned from a tree, maple syrup, fruit, seeds, cones or nuts?
Can you tell us about those harvesting experiences?
Have you ever climbed a tree and could you tell us about how it made you feel to be up in
the branches?
Can you describe any encounters with wildlife in relation to a tree?
Have you ever planted a tree on your property, and can you tell us how you chose what to
plant or what factors influenced your decision?
Has your purchase of a piece of a property been influenced by the presence of a tree or
trees?
Have you ever planted a tree in memory of an event or a person? Can you tell us about why
you chose that particular spot to plant the tree and why you chose that specific species of
tree to plant? What does it mean to you to be able to see that tree now?
52
Are you fond of any specific types of trees and can you tell us why?
Do you have a favorite tree in the city?
Has a tree that you were fond of ever died? Can you tell us what happened to the tree and
what you missed about it once it was gone?
What value do you think trees add to our lives in the city?
Do you have any photographs of trees that you are willing to share in the book?
Have you ever had a conflict with a neighbour over a tree, be it on a property borderline or
not? How was the conflict resolved?
Do you know about Emerald Ash Borer and what would you like the city to do to address this
new threat?
Are you aware of the City of Peterborough’s Urban Forest Management Plan? If yes, would
you be willing to commit a portion of your tax dollars to support the goals of the plan? What
are some of the tools or actions you would like to see the city use or take in that plan?
Do you believe that heritage trees that meet the guidelines of the Ontario Heritage Trust
should be protected by the city?
Have you ever hired or work with an arborist and what can you tell us about that experience?
Do you have a favorite park in the city and is that favoritism tied to the trees there?
Do you think the trees in your neighbourhood add property value and or character to the
neighbourhood? How would you describe the value to your neighbourhood the local trees
add? Do you believe that the trees in your neighbourhood differentiate it from other areas of
the city?
Do you have any trees on the commercial property where you work? What value does that
add to your working day?
Have you ever had a problem with a tree growing into your power lines, or with the roots
pushing up into a problem area like a driveway? How was the problem resolved?
Have you ever had property damage due to the trees on your property because of a storm
situation - did that change how you feel about the trees on your property?
Have you ever had a problem with property insurance related to the trees on your property?
Have you ever visited Ecology Park or purchased a tree there?
Would you like to see more investment on the part of the city in tree planting?
Do you think citizens should take more responsibility for trees on publicly owned lands?
53
Stories from People Interviewed
Below is a sample of stories from people I interviewed.
My name is Gail Murray and I bought the tree because it blooms every year at this time,
just like the people who died bloomed here with their dedication to the hospital and their
patients. If we put a plaque on a bench or something it never changes whereas a tree
always changes and people notice it, see it blooming and reflect on why it was planted.
I planted the same type of tree when my Dad died 4 years ago and every year when it
blooms it is so beautiful I just feel happy and sad.
The plaque we purchased says simply “ Thought’s today, Memories Forever” and we
mounted it on a piece of granite the daughter of one of the nurses who recently died of
cancer found on our farm . The gardener here took the time to surround the tree with
rocks and mulch the base so it stands out from the rest.
I think when someone dies the ones left behind are most afraid that their loved one will
just be forgotten. So I felt that a tribute to them was maybe a little token that we just
don’t move on - keep going, we will remember the people who can no longer come to
work and be with us in person.
By Gail Murray
Hi Jasmine,
I did submit the story of our 'son's' tree at Adam Scott Collegiate, last year.
David died of Leukaemia in 1990 while in grade 13 at Adam Scott, and the students
planted an English Oak in memory of him, on the grounds in the front of the school.
Despite someone breaking it nearly in half, the tree survived, and is now flourishing.
We enjoy looking at it each time we pass the school, and it reminds us of how David
kept up his fight to the end, and was so nicely remembered by his fellow students with a
lasting memorial of a tree.
Jennifer and Paul Burke
Hello,
Thanks for speaking with me today. If you don't mind answering the following questions,
we'd love some more info about the tree.
1. Why was that type of tree chosen for planting over other types?
Done by house builder.
2. What year was the tree planted?
1950
3. Why was the CB antenna in the tree? Can you tell me more about this?
The kids were C.B. fanatics in 1970's and they wanted more range.
4. Did kids ever climb the tree or use it in anyway?
54
Oh, yes. How do you imagine the antenna got up there? Certainly not by me.
5. Do animals live in or use the tree? Birds?
Birds, yes and squirrels, ants and a racoon at one time. I terminated its lease.
7. What kind of maintenance has been required for the tree?
Many large branch removals and trimmings.
By Dick Jennings
Hi Jasmine:
I can't find the original draft but here goes! I hope that you share it anyway with tree
lovers. I have that map and those pictures available if you can't find them. I also give
you permission to edit accordingly.
Some years ago, my dog Spirit and I were walking in the Curtis Pond area which is a
green space in the city of Peterborough along the Trent Canal. Lots of wildlife-I saw my
first 'small green heron' there -and not many people. Perfect! I came upon this wonderful
Scots pine just off the trail as I followed my dog and wound up at the base of 'the best
climbing tree' on public land in the city. I can say that confidently because my dog
insisted that I knew every trail in every public green space and city park. I'm an old tree
climber and knew instantly the gift this magnificent tree offered.
I was the volunteer director at that time of a children's fun club that met on P.A. days and
holidays throughout the year. My idea was to get the New Canadian's Centre to organize
a 'tree climbing party' somehow. The kids would all climb and sit on those mighty limbs:
hijabs and baseball caps, rainbow hued faces would beam and 'snap'! The title of the
picture would be "All My Children". I had a dream and it was treeific!
I presented my idea to the NCC director but it was 2 years before that dream came true
and the catalyst was the Peterborough Green Up 'Tree Contest'. One category was a 'Kid
Friendly' photograph. It was a go. Everything was organized and one beautiful day that
summer, we went for a nature walk, climbed that tree, took that picture and then went up
to Armourhill for a barbecue and games. It was all so perfect.
Three pictures were entered and we won a top prize! Seventeen kids and one adult in the
tree-Kid Friendly?-absolutely! The NCC also used the winning photo as a cover that year
for their Annual General Meeting brochure!
Dreams do come true.
Pictures and map available at Green Up.
By Julia Goodwind
55

Beneath the Canopy: Peterborough`s Heritage Trees and Urban Forest

Transcription

Similar documents

Year 2013

A Dendrologist`s Handbook

Los combustibles fósiles liberan bióxido de carbono al quemarse e

“LUCIAN GRIGORESCU” SCHOOL MEDGIDIA – CONSTANTA

Bloodgood Planetree Montmorency Cherry Scarlet Oak Purple

Wood you believe? - Georgia Farm Bureau

The Little Plant

Value and Benefits of Trees

forestry - City of Cedar Rapids

Trails Visioning Bettendorf, Iowa