SFist: Palms, Palms, Palms for the Poor

David

Thu, 10 Aug 2006 00:20:26 -0800

Fuck you

Jason

Thu, 11 May 2006 11:07:09 -0800

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.

Jamison

Mon, 08 May 2006 10:35:44 -0800

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?

Jason

Sun, 07 May 2006 23:27:58 -0800

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.

TB

Sun, 07 May 2006 22:26:45 -0800

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.

sfmike

Sun, 07 May 2006 19:38:33 -0800

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.

Iseult

Sun, 07 May 2006 12:51:46 -0800

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.

cedichou

Sat, 06 May 2006 23:07:56 -0800

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.

peretz

Sat, 06 May 2006 18:57:35 -0800

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.

Jas

Sat, 06 May 2006 17:37:37 -0800

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.

Matthew

Sat, 06 May 2006 16:57:00 -0800

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.