Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

1. CuriousResident
   Member

   After hearing some of the concerns stated at the board meeting (with the $5k donation for trees being discussed) I have been wanting to take a look at how some other Olmsted designed places are handling the DED issue.

   Olmsted (ironically meaning: one who came from, or lived near the homestead where elms grew) used elms extensively, so I knew there had to be something out there...first search I tried tonight found:

   
   Cultural Landscape Report - Lincoln Memorial Grounds Chp4-6

   The planting plan from this 1916 landscape design remains essentially intact. However, a few losses and changes have occurred. Along 17th Street, the northeast line of trees framing the main axis view is no longer standing and have not been replaced. Over the years, the elms originally planted along the Reflecting Pool have died. Unlike 17th Street and the rest of the mall, which are planted with American elms, a different type of elm was selected for the Reflecting Pool area.
   Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. recommended English elms for the double rows of trees along the Reflecting Pool, but documentation suggests that Dutch elm (Ulmus x hollandica), may have been planted originally.85 Presently, most of the Reflecting Pool elms are Dutch elms with a few smoothleaf, American, English and Scotch elms (Ulmus carpinifolia, Ulmus americana, Ulmus procera, Ulmus glabra) planted in between. Olmsted’s elm selection suggests a conscience decision to define a different tree form for this area. English elms that did not survive have been replaced in the same locations, but with other more sturdy and Dutch elm disease-resistant species. Such replanting has created a corridor of trees of varying heights, crowns and circumferences.

   Cultural Landscape Report - Lincoln Memorial Grounds Chp4-6

   Since the National Park Service’s stewardship began in 1933, it has attempted to maintain the original planting plan for the radial roads. Because Dutch elm disease (DED) has killed many American elms around the Lincoln Memorial, disease-resistant varieties have been planted to replace quite a few original trees. Although the number of mature trees growing along the radial roads varies, the spreading canopy of these trees remains an effective design element in the landscape.

   I'll look further (as time permits), but reading this I can't help but wonder...if the NPS is 'ok' with planting DED resistant elms to maintain Olmsted's designs, why aren't we?

   Posted Saturday Sep 12, 2009 21:44 #

2. JohnM
   Member

   I watched the blipTV version of the debate again, and the only answers i can come up with are:

   1) Reynolds and Sacchi are strict interpreters of the Olmsted vison. No non-native species are acceptable to them. They would rather see no plantings than anything that--in their view--was not part of the Olmsted plan.

   2) Sacchi appears to have a problem with Steve Campbell. He suggested that Campbell had a simplistic viewpoint and that he had ulterior motives in making this donation. Campbell was understandably furious about this, and it did him credit that he did not withdraw the offer then and there.

   3) There is a misunderstanding of the LAC list. Every Board member used the terms "Approved" and "Preferred" interchangebly. I don't believe they are. There is no "Approved" list. There is a "Preferred" list. Furthermore, the list does not have the force of law--it's a guideline that was created in the 1980s.

   4) The RCA Board members have concluded that there are 2 members of the LAC whose views have merit. The fact that these individuals were in the minority of the LAC decision doesn't appear relevant to the Board. Sacchi admitted as much when he stated that his view on the issue was based on conversations with the head of the LAC.

   I still can't believe they turned this down. What a slap in the face to a generous citizen and to the electorate.

   Posted Monday Sep 14, 2009 09:12 #

3. CuriousResident
   Member

   Related to JohnM's 1)

   Reynolds and Sacchi are strict interpreters of the Olmsted vison. No non-native species are acceptable to them. They would rather see no plantings than anything that--in their view--was not part of the Olmsted plan.

   My interpretation is that it is more than that just a non-native stance. I believe it is an "only natives grown from seed" stance.

   All the talk about "culitvars" is because they are clones of a singe plant. The risk factor is planting a village full of the same genetic tree is high...in that if anything (bug or disease) ever develops, you lose big.

   I agree that we should not plant a village full of 1 or 2 cultivars.
   I do *not* agree that cultivars are "bad".

   The NPS is planting a couple of different cultivars of Ulmus americana (American Elm) that were found to be DED resistant. I don't know all the ones available, but you can google Valley Forge, Jefferson, & (I think) Princeton to find info about them.

   The first result from a different google search for "olmsted using elms" brought back
   Olmsted's Favorite Tree
   ELM RESEARCH INSTITUTE
   A Non-Profit Organization Dedicated To Restoring The American Elm

   Sounds pretty good to me! They are 100% native...just not grown from seed with genetic variability.

   The last part is "the catch". It would be nice if we could grow elms from seed and not have to worry about DED, but that is not the case.

   So, it seems our board would rather live without elms in Riverside, than with "man made" ones. Seems a bit extreme to me~

   Posted Monday Sep 14, 2009 15:35 #

4. Fred
   Member

   The "native species" argument has some baggage. The theory being forwarded was actually espoused by Jens Jensen. He got into some hot water due to a certain totalitarian regime in Western Europe using his theories to promote ethnic purity. Of course some of his own quotes didn't help him out any. The "grown from seed native stock" argument is certainly not Olmstedian.

   Posted Monday Sep 14, 2009 16:57 #

5. CuriousResident
   Member

   I can buy into the prairie landscape guys' thought that native require should less maintenance.

   The rest of the interpretation is where folks seem to differ.

   Olmsted was known to bring in plants from all over for his projects (exotics and plants of substantial size from around the region) and the Riverside project had many financial constraints...so it would tend to reasons that natives was also a time and money saver.

   The "native grown from seed" is a somewhat modern battle versus the horticulture industry that clones and mass produces. Beyond the risk, the view is that it is taking out natural evolution. ~naughty humans influencing things~

   Of all the puritanical stands that could be made, this one seems to be missing context...IMO, it is purely principle focused.

   Posted Monday Sep 14, 2009 17:38 #

6. EricSundstrom
   Member

   Ding!Ding!Ding!Ding!Ding! Give Curious Resident a cookie for a really spot on post. Hit the nail on the head IMO.

   Posted Monday Sep 14, 2009 19:14 #

7. Tim
   Member

   Thanks for starting this thread.

   I am one who thinks there may be merit to the inclusion of certain cultivars into our tree stock. I'm in the process of researching the strengths and weaknesses of what would be reasonably available to Riverside and any links such as those above would be helpful. I'm hoping to get some insights from Mike Collins and I'd like to get some more information from the Morten Arboretum.

   I think the science of cultivars (like most modern technologies) has changed dramatically in recent years. It is quite possible that negative attributes from these trees noted 15 or 20 years ago no longer apply. I do not feel the board had good scientific evidence to exclude cultivars all together. It may be that the trees selected were not of the most durable strain, but there are others available that may be better suited to our needs. Excluding ALL cultivars on principle ignores the possibility that some newer generation trees may actually work in our environment.

   Interesting to find that although the Accolade Elm may not be the best suited, it sounds like the Valley Forge Elm has many qualities of the American Elm with excellent resistance to DED. Identifying trees that both meet the requirements of our environment and our community is the next step to moving forward on this topic.

   Posted Monday Sep 14, 2009 20:17 #

8. JohnM
   Member

   Leaving aside (for a moment) the issue of cultivars and natives grown from seed, take a look at the regulations regarding planting in Riverside. Unfortunately, the more you look into this, the more confusing it gets.

   There is a list of "Preferred Plant Materials" in the Riverside Municipal Code at 10-12-5, Appendix E. http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=610 . This section of the Code, however, also states that these are "LAC Recommended Plant Materials."

   In the LAC Pamphlet "Landscaping in A Landmark Village" at pg. 11-12, there is a list of "Recommended Plants."

   These 2 lists are not identical. While there are a number of trees that appear on both, there are also some differences. For example, the list in the Code includes White Ash and Blue Ash, which are not in the LAC list. The same holds true for other categories of plants. The list in the Code contains more plants and trees.

   It gets even more confusing when one looks at the section of the Code which governs landscaping on public land (10-9-2 (A)). That section states that "Permitted plant materials are listed in the approved plant materials list included as appendix E of this zoning ordinance."

   So, there are four--four!!--different terms being used for what appears to be the same thing--"approved," "permitted," "preferred" and "recommended." Furthermore, the list being used and distributed by the LAC is different than the list contained in the Code.

   It seems to me that until thiese discrepancies are ironed out--which will involve revising the Code to ensure that consistent language is being used--there is going to be confusion about what can and cannot be planted. I know it seems that I'm getting hung up on semantics, but I don't think I am. Vague statutes lead to confusiion, and result in problems for citizens and government alike.

   Once the terminology is agreed on, the LAC and Board should--in my view--take on the issue of expanding the list. Obviously, I believe we should be looking at including some disease-resistant cultivars, as well as allowing for certain "experimental" plantings to determine what does and does not work. But first, lets tighten up the language and make it clear what we really mean.

   Posted Tuesday Sep 15, 2009 09:17 #

9. ChrisHajer
   Member

   Nice job JohnM.

   Posted Tuesday Sep 15, 2009 09:30 #

10. KimJ
    Member

    Wow! John M, you are right.

    Also, the board/LAC needs to iron out their language, and or alter their documents before they can accept material on their "plants to avoid" lists as well.

    Posted Tuesday Sep 15, 2009 13:37 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.