17 Dec My Dec 22, 2024 Seattle Times ad calls ‘One Seattle’ the worst of both worlds
Posted from Seattle, WA on December 17, 2024
One Seattle is a terrible plan that will not achieve much density but will succeed in wiping out the remainder of Seattle’s urban tree canopy, already ranked low among the great American cities.
Northwest Buldings have mostly been dwarfed by our Northwest Trees–
& One Seattle won’t help
We live in a place where the native trees are the tallest in the entire world. The commonest tree here, the coastal Doug Fir, is the tallest tree in the world.. In Illinois the characteristic native tree is the Burr Oak, which is a magnificent and beautiful tree. But when you see a mature one, you would be more impressed by its width than its height. Should buildings and houses be the same size here as they are in Illinois? No, but the building codes and building cultures were imported from further East without any thought as to their actual usefulness here. We have been living in pain with Nature ever since.
“Our region has been home to the world’s tallest trees. (The biggest were all cut, one Doug Fir measured 415’.)”
Washingtonians in my experience are not always aware that they live amongst Tree-Royalty. They tend to think that that distinction belongs only to our southern neighbors. To their credit, Californians recognized the tourism-value of big trees and bragged about their trees from day one. And indeed, the Giant Sequoia I believe may be the most massive tree on Earth. Coast Redwoods appear to be more massive, height being equal, than a Douglas Fir. But that’s exactly the point, the Doug Fir is the tallest tree in the world, in fact you might call it a height-specialist. More slender than a Redwood or a Sequoia, more slender than a Western Red Cedar and quicker to let go of its lower branches than a Sitka Spruce, a Doug Fir is always be racing straight upward to get more sun, like another tree I grew up with in Pennsylvania, the Tuliptree, which by contrast never lives much past 60 years and doesn’t come close to being a really tall tree by world standards.
But the really tall Doug Firs were all cut. I guess we can say thankfully, some were measured on the ground. No one questions that the Lynn Valley tree, cut on land now within the city limits of the city of Vancouver, BC, was 415 ft, and this is thought by some to be the tallest tree that has ever well-documented. An Australian Eucalyptus came very close to this at 411 ft and perhaps there are higher reports of this species. (Australia-boosters may disagree more with this blog than anyone.) But as if to put to rest the debate over the Australian Mountain Ash there are numerous reports from the days the original Northwest forest was falling that indicate 400 plus foot Doug Firs were, if not common, widespread and existed in many drainages. One, the Nooksak Giant, was measured at 465′ after being felled in 1865. (All this is from Wikipedia. (If you want information, don’t go for AI, type the question into Google with the work Wikipedia after it and donate small amounts when Wikipedia comes begging.)
The tale becomes complex. In recent years one or more physicists have concluded the natural limit for how high a tree can grow is 425′. This was based on the physics of osmosis, which brings water from the ground up into the tree branches. That had seemed to cast doubt on the reported height of the Nooksak Giant,. was measured after felling at 465 ft. In my opinion, there has been too much doubt cast on the measurement of the Nooksak Giant. Just because they lived a long time ago doesn’t mean they didn’t know how to measure a tree. More recently other physicists have claimed that some trees can bring moisture to their top limbs using a different method from osmosis through the roots. These trees, such as Doug Fir, use the moisture in the air, particularly in wet, misty, cloudy and foggy areas (such as the Nooksak valley) to get water to their upper branches. I may be guilty of regional pride, but I think the record is clear: The Doug Fir is the world’s tallest tree. The Northwest and Southwest Canada is the natural home of the world’s tallest trees.
Here is that short Wikipedia article on Doug Fir height.
Here is the URL for Wikipedia’s discussion: Lynn Valley Tree – Wikipedia
This photo of the Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie River near Seattle shows what many landscapes of the Northwest also feature, a line of Doug Firs on the horizon with their crazy-branching pattern and great height.
“But laws have limited the height of buildings to as little as 25’, making it hard for them to live in harmony with our beautiful trees.”
It gets delicate when a tree-hugger raises the subject of the danger posed by trees. But as I have publicly argued regarding Wolves, it can be a false friend who pooh-poohs these kinds of dangers. If something terrible does happen, the credibilty of the tree- or Wolf-hugger is in shreds, so in some minds, their voices will not be a factor in the future. Here in the Northwest buildings that have no defenses against even an adolescent Doug Fir have proliferated. Some might argue that that means we should eliminate the big Firs, I certainly hope that is a tiny minority.
One thing we can do is change the laws so people are no longer prevented, and are even encouraged, to build housing and other structures that can mount a good defense against a falling Doug Fir or other big tree. I had an epiphany in the 1970s when I visited a nephew who was attending the Evergreen State University. A student dorm that was 8 stories high was set in a forest and I was astonished to see that walking around at our feet was a Ruffed Grouse, the quintessential bird of woodland and the state bird of Pennsylvania, from where I hail, and where I have never seen one–they are gone from the counties in the Piedmont and Coastal zone there. I saw that at the top of this building you might be able to look out over the forest. I immediately wanted to go to the 8th floor to look over the forest, but, hey, those weren’t for the public. Five stories isn’t enough to reach the top of a middle-aged tree around here. This is how things should have been done in the Northwest wherever it was feasible. Trees could fall in this area and the building and every one in it would be unscathed.
This is a photo of a Ruffed Grouse out on the Peninsula near Port Angeles . Forty years ago I was thrilled to find one walking around on the TESC campus, I doubt they have been able to hang on there. Photo by Ed Newbold
“The city could reverse its emphasis, relaxing on height rather than footprint, and could achieve more density while saving us from the heat, bad air, and monotony of an urban desert.”
The city is slumping as government removes the muscles holding it up. Low buildings and pavement will soon cover all the land, with no big trees, precious few little trees and no place to grow new ones. We are the proverbial automobile speeding up a ramp labeled. “Wrong Way.” The irony is that this path will in no way allow for enough density to meet the existing or coming market demand.
“Seattle’s proposed 20-year plan, One Seattle, would crowd more short buildings into redeveloped bare lots. There would be few/no height-rewards for developers who want to build among existing trees, little protection for mature trees, & inadequate space for new trees.”
The current and planned zoning rules set up a “bad developer” paradigm. If a developer finds trees on a lot that they are trying to develop, the existing incentive is to pay to get rid of the trees or cheat or break the law to get rid of the trees, as recently happened when presumably a developer or an ally mortally wounded a mature oldgrowth tree whose removal was becoming controversial. We are currently seeing trees falling at a great rate in all the neighborhoods and neighbors being told, “Oh, that tree won’t need to be cut,” just before a tree is cut.
In my opinion, the most important thing that needs to be put in place is a height/density reward when a developer has trees on a lot. If the reward is sufficient, which I suppose the market would determine, the developer would no longer be being incentivized by government to be a tree-hater. We know that many developers don’t feel good about being the community villain, and many love trees. Let’s take the financial burden off their shoulders of being the ones asked to pay for all the tree-loving.
Trees & People, Tree Action Seattle, and this Newspaper are shining the way forward. Happily, not everyone is going along with the plan to decimate Seattle’s remaining tree canopy. The first two organizations need volunteers and donations. The third deserves your support always.
Trees and People
Here is the link: TREES AND PEOPLE COALITION – Home
Tree Action Seattle
Here is the link: Tree Action Seattle
Seattle Times
Here is the Dec 6 editorial: Actually, I can’t include a link that will work because of content restrictions. The article was, in my opinion, excellent and began this way:
“For Seattleites who appreciate trees, Mayor Bruce Harrell’s “One Seattle” comprehensive plan ought to spark grave concerns.
The city’s proposed 20-year blueprint for growth contains major changes for residential neighborhoods, paving the way for developers to build across lots with little room for shade-providing trees.”
No Comments