Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

41. CuriousResident
    Member

    Not sure I get the "stewardship versus economizing"...

    This is all about stewardship, and agreeing on what that means, no?

    Other topics to add to the "should we" list is:

    - Should we consider that our world in 2009 is very different than it was in 1868?

    Meaning, Morton Arboretum's experience/research, and the nursery industry(tree choices and availability) was not anything like it is today.

    - Should we then consider what was behind Olmsted's choice of "only natives in Riverside", since he was not "above" using exotics in some of his other projects?

    There is a lengthy list of why natives are a good idea, but I believe if you boil it down, the basis Olmsted chose natives was simply that they were hardy and would not require substantial upkeep.

    Maybe I have a simplistic view, but here is an excerpt from the UMich Revisting Riverside paper

    The prairie landscape architects interest in the use of native
    plants in their arrangements grew from an increased understanding that native plants tended to fare better in the Midwestern landscape than some exotic species

    -Should we then learn/ask why the Accolade Elm was developed?

    As early as 1950, the dreaded DED was discovered in Illinois and by 1959 had been found in every county in Illinois. By the late 1950s, nearly 80% of the original elm population in central and southern Illinois had been killed due to the ravages of this fungal pathogen. Due to the removal of dead or dying elms from the urban forests and landscapes, communities throughout Illinois and the United States experienced the loss of cathedral-like tree-lined boulevards, greatly reducing landscape and property value, shade, and other ecological benefits.
    As a result of this catastrophic event, a concerted and cooperative effort was begun by tree breeders and geneticists to develop and\or discover new elm species and\or hybrids that would be resistant to Dutch elm disease.

    Hopefully, results from these studies and the elm improvement study will once again establish the elm to a useful place in our urban forests and landscapes without the need for intensive pest control practices.

    Read NEW ELMS FOR THE LANDSCAPE AND URBAN FOREST for the rest of Professor of Horticulture Miller's paper.

    IMO, you can't take things written in another time period as being "without reapproach"...you have to think about the what was the context in which it was written. Yes, we are going to introduce variance from different interpretations, but IF we can put aside personal emotion we should be able to get to some logic that we can all align with.

    Posted Wednesday Aug 26, 2009 11:20 #

42. Tim
    Member

    Curious, your last paragraph made me chuckle, it reminded me of an old Theology professor who used to teach us, "...the Bible is true, only in the sense that the human authors meant it to be."

    Your points are quite in-line with what I think we should be focused on here. As for stewardship versus economizing, I read too many arguments as to why we should or shouldn't do this because it is FREE. I agree with you that its all about stewardship and a key to successful stewardship is making educated and informed decisions.

    After reading through the posts, I would agree with Kim, who suggests the LAC revisit their list and if necessary, make amendments with adequate documentation as to the rational for altering the list. You seem very knowledgeable and could provide them with further information to this end.

    Posted Wednesday Aug 26, 2009 12:46 #

43. JohnM
    Member

    Tim,

    That was a thoughtful post. I'm curious about the following statement you made and have a couple questions:

    Should we abandon natural mechanisms for reforestation and fighting pestilence (fires/natural selection) for man-made cultivars?

    Riverside is a man-made environment. An environment that works with nature as opposed to against it, but a man-made environment nevertheless. When we lose trees to pestilence (dutch elm, EAB, gypsy moth), they will not replace themselves. Nor can we rely on natural selection to come up with disease resistent species (at least in the here and now). In other words, we can't rely on nature or natural mechanisms alone to replenish the trees (originally planted and nurtured by man) that we have lost. Do you see the use of disease-resistance cultivars to replace some of these losses as being anthitical to the Olmsted legacy? Do you think we risk our NHL status by utilizing some of these? Would you approve, for example, if the LAC altered its list to include some cultivars?

    Posted Wednesday Aug 26, 2009 13:13 #

44. Tim
    Member

    John, I am certainly not the expert to quote, but I can give you my opinion as to the questions you raise.

    I will prefice this with an analogy.

    I happen to be a fan of Frank Lloyd Wright, and feel quite familiar with his work and in particular with his use of materials with regard to his projects. In his early years, Mr. Wright was actually quite forward thinking not only in design, but also with the use of materials. Specialized lighting, steel frame construction, reinforced concrete were tools he utilized to achieve his unique architectural designs. Although some now date over 100 years, many of these homes still stand today, and some are even of NHL status.

    Modern day restoration architects face the same issues we are discussing here when they attempt to maintain and preserve these sites. Some are purists, hoping only to recreate what Mr. Wright originally built (although Space-Pac still seems to find its way into many of these structures).

    Some restoration architects take a different approach. They understand the essence of the finished product but feel free to use modern materials where possible if the finished product is more sustainable (ie green materials, geo-thermal heating systems, computerized HVAC systems, heated flooring). Their logic being that if Mr. Wright had his choice of what is available today, he would favor these modern systems as they would only add to the natural feel of the finished architectural project.

    I tend to favor the latter approach.

    Now for your questions:

    "Do you see the use of disease-resistance cultivars to replace some of these losses as being antithetical to the Olmsted legacy?"

    No. I do not see this as antithetical. In fact, I do see this as an excellent opportunity to debate this issue. This may even be an opportunity for Riverside to become a leader and not only promote awareness regarding issues such as Dutch Elm, Gypsy Moth or EAB, but also promote awareness for Olmsted and the importance of Riverside and her NHL status.

    "Do you think we risk our NHL status by utilizing some of these?"

    The biggest risk here is to make landscape decisions without full information. I feel a key factor to avoid compromising the NHL status is for the community to AGREE upon an approach. Demonstrating community recognition of the reasons for our NHL designation wouldn't hurt either. An informed approach we all agree upon would carry great weight with the National Parks Service.

    "Would you approve, for example, if the LAC altered its list to include some cultivars?"

    As I stated before, I would agree with Kim that if there needs to be a change it should start with the LAC. I would encourage all residents with information and research on cultivars to present it to the LAC, and to the Board if it becomes necessary.

    Posted Wednesday Aug 26, 2009 14:16 #

45. HABIV
    Member

    Tim,

    Fr. O'Connell taught you well, but you left off the "Awk. Awk.".

    I'm not certain, butI think that forester wanted to test drive these trees, in limited numbers, before including them on the list, which would make them available to the general public. Perhaps that's why the LAC didn't just amend the list.

    Posted Wednesday Aug 26, 2009 14:36 #

46. JillM
    Member

    If you want to watch the tree discussion from the board meeting online, it is now available on blip.tv. Search 'Riverside Board'. It spans parts 2 and 3.

    Not sure why the meeting is not available on the Village website yet, on the Open and Transparent Government link....

    Posted Thursday Aug 27, 2009 19:21 #

47. commonsense
    Member

    Thanks Jill, I just watched the video.

    I enjoyed the various posters comments and absolutely agree that native trees are an asset to this Village for all the reasons set forth. I get that.

    The board discussed the issue for almost an hour. What I heard is that the Village is going to plant experimental trees this year anyway, including cultivar Ginkgo trees. However, without this $5,000 donation, the Village will plant 50% fewer trees this year, 35 instead of 70. Mr. Campbell didn't even recommend the Accolade Elm tree, the forester did and the village has been buying these trees for years. (I'm not sure if he was referring to the Accolade Elm, cutivars or experimental trees) Gorman then went on to chide Mr. Campbell stating he is troubled by Campbell's strident attitude.

    I don’t get it. Who in their right mind will give the Village a penny for anything after this.

    Thanks for trying Trustee Sussman and Trustee Sells.

    Posted Thursday Aug 27, 2009 20:42 #

48. KimJ
    Member

    Although I already buried my horse.......

    I often find it amazing how like minded, smart, and socially aware individuals come to opposite conclusions.... but, it happens. This is what should be the "checks and balances" of effective government, Amen.

    On a side issue, and perhaps how I would differ with Mike Foley's article in todays Landmark... that there is an assumption, that because you pay someone to recommend something, that it is automatically correct because you paid them for it. I personally think our boards (ALL of them!) need to spend WAY more time in oversight than just rubberstamping employee recommendations.

    Back to a donation being smirked.... Olmsted Society has had donations (offers) turned down. Junior's has had difficulty donating to the village. That there is a donation difficulty is hardly a shocker, thus I don't understand the drama. Either a donation fits into the current village policy or does not.

    Regarding Cultivars as a donation, the LAC document regarding Landscape on the village website is very clear regarding their opinion of cultivars. Either the village wants them or they do not. The LAC should revisit their document as they see fit.

    Posted Thursday Aug 27, 2009 21:56 #

49. ChrisHajer
    Member

    I seem to recall a historical commission commissioner having difficulty donating the Riverside Museum website to the village. There's always more to it than just 'looking a gift horse in the mouth' I think.

    Posted Thursday Aug 27, 2009 22:30 #

50. CuriousResident
    Member

    JillM, thanks for the pointer to blip...

    I don't know the village's history with Mr.Campbell, but clearly there is some (reference the comment about paying someone to plant things unavailable negatively effecting your job(our former Forrester was seemingly chased out for being involved in doing that)) and it appeared to be at the root of some tension in the room (cheap shot).

    For as long as I've been here, the "preferred" tree list (not "approved" as called many times) has been perceived as limiting...many not being available.

    The current Forrester also appears to feel this way (...we don't want a village full of oaks...) and is the one proposing the trees (not on the list) to plant with the dontation!

    I hesitate to mention this, as the 'purist' may react and further stop reasonable efforts...the 50/50 program was mentioned many times, with the general sense of being acceptable to all. Have you all looked at the offerings? There are 'dreaded' cultivars on there: Black Maple 'Green column', American Linden 'Redmond', & Ginkgo 'Magyar'.

    BTW, 'Cultivar' seems to keep getting misconstrued to mean 'non-native'...it doesn't explicitly mean that...it means 'clone' reproduced because it is viewed as a value adder. From a diversity stand point, it is not in anyone's best interest to densly plant a single cultivar, but planting a quantity of many different cultivars avoids "having all your eggs in 1 basket".

    And what was with the "If we do this, it says anyone can buy the parkway and do what they want" red herring?

    Posted Thursday Aug 27, 2009 23:01 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.