Disappearing Trees in Chinatown?

On September 26, the Chinatown Blogger was one of many people that Jeff, a Chinatown resident, had emailed about trees being paved over in Chinatown. His subject line was titled, “Street Trees not Cement in Chinatown”. After Jeff had sent the email, the City’s Parks and Recreation responded. Below are the exchange of emails.

Jeff, Chinatown Resident, September 26th

“Mr. Mayor:
Over the past several years you have, on numerous occasions, expressed public support and city funds for street trees in Boston. These trees provide heat relief and a livable canopy to your constituents in the city. They make Boston: “America’s Walking City.”

Why, then, are you allowing the Boston DPW to PERMANENTLY remove city street tree locations in Chinatown? Is Chinatown not worthy of street trees? Do we not deserve a street canopy of shade? (I believe the Boston DPW reports to you as Mayor.)

Specifically egregious actions:
TODAY - September 26, 2007 your DPW department PERMANENTLY cemented over a street tree grate on Oak Street West by the Quincy School, across from the Wang YMCA. This was a street tree location for 20 years (cut down). This is consistent with you commitment to more trees in the city? How? Does this location not deserve a new tree?

Last Year - the DPW cemented over two street tree locations on Oak Street (east of Washington) in Chinatown. These tree locations were part of the Tufts-New Medical Center commitment to community improvement of Oak Street to allow them to build a massive Medical Centre expansion on the street. Today there are two trees not four as committed. (And the two are only there because we asked NEMC to replant dead trees — which they did in some locations).

Please explain how this is consistent with your commitment to city trees in neighborhoods. Why are you cementing over the tree locations in our neighborhood? Doesn’t Chinatown count as a city neighborhood? Don’t we deserve Trees not Cement!

Please let us know why Chinatown gets cement in our sidewalks, rather than new trees!”

Gregory Mosman, City Arborist of the Boston Parks & Recreation responded, September 28th:

” As the City of Boston Tree Warden I believe I can answer your questions. The short answer is that The Americans with Disabilities Act minimum sidewalk width has changed. The new standard is 48” and we need a minimum of 36” to plant a tree, all sidewalks must be a minimum of 84” excluding the curb.

To address your specific inquiries: The sidewalk across from the YMCA is not wide enough. The trees at Tufts-NEMC were not all replaced because of conflicts with light posts and handicapped parking areas.

We are committed to planting as many trees as possible while following Federal and City regulations.

Please feel free to contact me with any further questions or concerns.

Respectfully,
Gregory Mosman, MCA
City Arborist
Boston Parks & Recreation”

Jeff then wrote back on Sept. 29th with photos to document his points:

“Mr. Mosman,
Thank you for the explanation. I am, however, a bit confused about the width issue on Oak Street West, and the trees not replaced on Oak Street in 2006. Please reference the attached images.

On Oak Street West, BPW narrowed the street tree pits for two other trees in the same stretch of street. Clearly these are now less than 36 ” wide. Would it not have been possible to preserve a narrower street tree pit there and replant a tree? (I understand that you have to comply with the ADA requirements — but this stretch of sidewalk has numerous other obsticals to the width, including two other trees, two fire hydrants and a parking sign pole.) The only way you can be ADA compliant would be to completely rebuild the sidewalk (taking part of a street lane).

On Oak Street where the tree pits were filled in in 2006 (by BPW) and 2003 (by Suffolk Construction), I do not see the conflicts mentioned. (I believe these conflicts did exist on Washington Street.) There is no apparent interference with a light pole or handicapped parking. This is the no parking side of Oak Street. Because of the paved street tree pits, Tufts-NEMC was unable to replace two of the four trees from the original streetscape plan for this block (when they graciously replanted trees in 2006).

There seems to be a lack of communication about the importance of street trees. I appreciate any additional insights you could provide.

Best regards,
Jeff”

Since then, the Chinatown Blogger has not heard any response from the City on Jeff’s 2nd email and photos.

This entry was posted on October 7, 2007 at 8:35 am and is filed under WORD ON THE STREET. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

| Print