Parents Petition Caltrain to Reduce Train Speed In Palo Alto
Gavin Newsom's Mariah Carey-like Interview Demand
How to Keep Your Car Windows Safe In the Tenderloin
Urgent: SF Food Bank Needs Your Help
Gavin Cans Film Commission Head Stephanie Coyote
We were reading the Chron this morning and read up on their story about the planting of palm trees throughout the city. Let's just say right off we like palm trees. And let's just say that while we often find it kind of funny that we are planting palm trees in a city known for having tropical kind of days maybe once or twice a year, we still like the thought behind it. In fact, we think it's in a way, very San Francisco in that it shows our belief in being something reality says we're not but who cares?
Anyways, while the story was mainly about the history of the trees and our determination to plant more of them, we couldn't happen to notice that there was some criticism of the trees mentioned in the story. One person brings up the fact that from an environmental standpoint, palm trees aren't exactly the best trees in that regards, or at least there are infinitely more trees that could do better. But it was this statement by Randy Shaw of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic that caught our attention. Randy complains that the trees are "are associated with upscale places like Miami Beach" and that the planting of them on 6th street, where many poor can be found, "sends the wrong message."
We think that's a good point, actually. This being San Francisco, it definitely means that not only do the trees we plant should send a message, but a tolerant message, one that supports the plight of the poor and the oppressed. But what tree would that be?
So we began to think about it. What tree would not only send a more positive message to the poor, but also be in the spirit of this city?
First we thought about what would make a good tree for poor people and we thought, what kind of tree symbolizes poverty? Unfortunately, we couldn't come up with anything because we usually don't associate poor people with trees. Mainly because most poor people don't live in places where trees are usually found. Because they’re poor.
So then we thought where would one find a lot of poor people, especially in woodsy type climes. We could come up with only one thing-- Golden Gate Park. Other than that, we couldn't come up with anything else, as we couldn't really think of many groups of poor people living in fjords. In fact, most poor people (in a macro sense-- we fully realize there are plenty of poor people to be found anywhere and everywhere) can be found in warmer climes, mainly around the equator. Most of themlive in deserts or arid areas (again, because they're poor) but when we think about those areas, we came upon the type of trees one associates with warmer climes-- palm trees.
Nevermind.
So then we thought about Jesus. Jesus, after all, was (is) one of the most influential and passionate speakers on the poor. So, then, What Would Jesus Plant? So we did some research (popped in our dusty tape cassette of "Jesus Christ Superstar") and discovered that when Jesus entered Jerusalem, he was welcomed by people waving palm branches. Thus giving us the "Palm" in "Palm Sunday" (there is, however, no record of the apostles responding to the mayhem by singing"what's the buzz? Tell me what's-happenin'"
There goes that idea.
So if maybe palm trees and the poor do kind of work in some weird sort of way, what about other messages to send? Like maybe we should plant trees that are associated with peace? Is there an anti-war tree?
Well, Jesus was often called "The Prince of Peace" and he's usually associated with...oh wait.
We then did a search on Google for "peace tree" and found out that there's some big thing in Toronto this summer about the planting of a "Peace Tree" and the hopes that from there, it could grow into some Christmas-like celebration where every summer, we hang up little multicultural baubles to end war. We have to say we eagerly await the day Bill O'Reilly declares that there's a War Against the Peace Tree. Anyways, there is no mention of what type of tree the Peace Tree is, although according to the Buddhists, all trees symbolize peace. That, obviously, includes palm trees.
Finally, we went looking to see if we could find a tree that symbolizes the diversity we find in this city, mainly one with just enough ambiguous sexuality to represent all of us. After all, we wouldn't want to plant trees that are distinctly heterosexual. So we did a search for "palm trees sex" and, well, whoo-hee, we discovered a whole bunch of things, none of which had anything to do with palm tree reproduction per se, but made us really want to go on a vacation to Thailand. Finally, we did discover that natural palm reproduction does involve a mommy and daddy as it were, which means, sadly, that palm trees are pretty straight. They can, however, be created through artificial means. That does kind of work, in a way.
So, we think what we're saying is that yes, actually, palm trees do work in San Francisco. The more the better, in fact. Because who doesn't love palm trees? As for what kind of message it sends to poor people, we're pretty sure they have more things to worry about then the vegetation in the streets they live.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Palm trees are not native, not attractive, and have no place in San Francisco. The primary reason they have become the tree of choice these days has everything to do with their low level of maintenance; they don't lose their leaves, they can withstand high levels of wind, and can also handle being hit by a car (an actual reason used to defend them by the city after one of their planting sprees). They are basically little more than a telephone pole with a fluff of green on top.
Oh Matthew, palm trees are too attractive, and of course they have a place in San Francisco. As for not being native, I guess we got over that when they started planting them in the early 1900s. As for those reasons you state, I can't really say that there is anything wrong with any of that. In my book, more trees is better trees. Plus, palm trees reminds us that we do indeed live in California when it's 45 degrees and the fog rolls in.
A main town square is marked with a palm tree in Warsaw, Poland. As a symbol of the tropics, it serves as a representation of hope for a relatively cold climate. However, for the same reason a real palm tree could not survive there -- the one that stands is plastic. All of which results in an ironic commentary on hope.
Matthew: you say that they are basically little more than a phone pole with green on top. But that's exactly the point: because of their narrow footprint on the ground and for a dozen feet, you can plant them in spot where you would not be able to plant any other tree. I'd love an oak on the middle of octavia boulevard, but there is just no room.
The State Tree of California is the California redwood, also a bit large and inappropriate for a city street planting. If I were given a vote on this I'd vote for the Northern California Manzanita, which has small white flowers and would look nice juxtaposed with all the magnolia trees.
http://www.library.ca.gov/history/cahinsig.cfm
This site has info on California state designated things, including the State Tree - and the State Grass . . . which is Purple Needlegrass, not anything else you might be thinking of.
The recently planted palm trees along the Embarcadero and up Market Street and elsewhere are Canary Island Palms, and they're not imitating Los Angeles or Miami but Las Palmas. I live in a building where there is a 100-year-old specimen in the central courtyard and it's one of the great, soulful trees I've ever known.
My only regret is that I'm not going to be around 100 years from now when all the recently planted trees in San Francisco have become equally as wonderful. They love the salt air, the climate and can even adapt to obnoxious automobile exhaust.
And yes, Randy Shaw is often ridiculous, and worse.
One of the reasons I live in SF is that i HATE LA. I agree with those who say--- what the hell are we thinking, trying to look like LA? Viva la FOG. Viva la NORTHERN California.
I have so many comments I don't know where to start.
1) My love for SFist grows and grows, like a Phoenix canariensis on the Embarcadero! A Jubaea chilensis at the DeDe Young! A Chamaerops humilis in a Noe Valley dooryard!
2) The only trees native to San Francisco (and this is stretching the definition of tree) are Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Buckeye (Aesculus californica), some brushy willows, California Bay (Umbellularia californica), and Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia, mostly a shrub). None of these is appropriate as a street tree, least on 6th and Mission. They're gorgeous in Buena Vista Park, however.
3) LA, shmellay. The Huntington Library, Gallery & Botanical Gardens is one of LA's primo botanical spots, whose palm collection is considered one of the best in California. Guess where some of their first palms came from in the early 1900s? Nob Hill, from Mr. Huntington's uncle's house, shipped via the family railway. Palms are the earth's third-most important plant family, after grasses and beans. Palms may remind people of LA but they're grown everywhere they're viable, including Seattle (e.g. Trachycarpus fortunei), Rome, Melbourne, Barcelona, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Cape Town, Baghdad, Valparaiso, Buenos Aires...Don't let LA make you hate.
4) San Francisco is a particularly suitable spot to cultivate certain palm species that cannot tolerate heat, such as the wax palms of the Andes, Ceroxylon spp., and the New Zealand native Nikau, Rhopalostylis sapida. At least 100 species of palms are viable garden plants in San Francisco. Many of our common garden plants grow with palms in their habitats.
5) Why did Heidi Benson have to resort to Beltway-style pro/con reporting when the article clearly should have been in the home, datebook or science section? If the real question is spending $3000 per tree on beautification / gentrification of skid row, then talk about that, not the particular plant material. How much were the pavers and street furniture?
6) Somebody needs to write a juicy rant about the mildew-infested London plane trees blighting our sidewalks. But I'm headed to bed.
7) On his way to South Beach and Cannes, Randy Shaw must have forgotten all those date palms feeding the poor (and rich) Baghdadis, and the coconuts and palmyras so many of the poor of the tropics subsist on.
Octavia is listed on the map accompanying the story, and until I saw that, I didn't realize they had planted palms on Octavia other than the Market intersection.
I just hadn't noticed the ones at Octavia and Hayes because of all the other kinds of trees which had been planted. I don't know anything about trees, and for all I know what's planted along Octavia is just as non-native as the palms, but they feel as though they belong in a neighborhood full of victorians.
I don't mind the palms along the Embarcadero, and they seem to fit at the entrance to the ballpark, but I wish they were used much more judiciously. In the Glen Park plan, San Jose Avenue would be restored to a street and lined with palm trees, but do palm trees seem right for Glen Park?
None of Octavia Blvd.'s tree species is native to San Francisco, but they have used native ferns and iris hybrids of native origin in the median plantings. The palms at Hayes Green are Washingtonia, either W. filifera or a W. filifera X W. robusta hybrid. Washingtonia filifera is the native California Fan Palm (Palm Springs habitat), but very unsuited to San Francisco's coastal climate and subject to disfiguring fungal disease (not unlike the London Plane Trees on Market!). Washingtonia robusta is the skinnier species that does not suffer in our warmer neighborhoods, the type on Mission at 16th and 24th.
Fuck you