The Lost Oaks of California Ave(paulgraham.com)
paulgraham.com
The Lost Oaks of California Ave
http://paulgraham.com/californiaavenueoaks.html
119 comments
I'll take a thoughtful essay on architecture and the power of government over the crap OMG look at this crazy Sh!t! and the self help How to lose weight/How to get a date/How to be social. articles which are hitting the front page more and more often.
I agree, but I think that if this essay had been written by someone else, it probably would not have made the front page.
A lot of HN users are in Silicon Valley, and most people in SV know California Ave. This is the neighborhood Facebook just moved to, among other things.
I meant nothing towards you. PG's gonna write essays on whatever he wants. I was just pointing out evidence of the adulation/infatuation some of the HN denizens have for you.
BTW I know Calif. Ave. too, I used to eat at Chu's every now and then (the little potsticker hole-in-the-wall shop). Is that still there?
BTW I know Calif. Ave. too, I used to eat at Chu's every now and then (the little potsticker hole-in-the-wall shop). Is that still there?
HN is a community, not a utility. All the usual dynamics apply.
I'm fine with non-lame non-hacking posts, by any author. Most life/computer-hacking stories posted here are formulaic and sad. This brief slice of humanity far exceeds the average story.
For the nth time: everything on Hacker News does not have to be about programming. This is a community made of real people who have real feelings and most importantly people who can have mature conversations about anything that matters.
Ass kissing? Ugh.
If you don't like a story, flag it. Stop whining or leave.
Also see http://lesswrong.com/lw/3h/why_our_kind_cant_cooperate
Ass kissing? Ugh.
If you don't like a story, flag it. Stop whining or leave.
Also see http://lesswrong.com/lw/3h/why_our_kind_cant_cooperate
He said "ass kissing," not "ass kicking". I don't know if that makes a difference to you, though.
Ooh got carried away in anger there.
Corrected, thanks.
Corrected, thanks.
It's a herd phenomenon. Even if PG writes something utterly pointless, he gets upvoted to the stratosphere. It would be nice if this changed. Intelligent and successful people like PG don't need this kind of adulation.
I can't quite put my finger on it, but I think this comment shows a slight lack of... something... hmm...
This is a bit disorganized, but I'll try to lay out how the gears are turning in my head:
When you implicitly call out a community or someone very admired in that community (whose also running things for free for a lot of people's enjoyment), it's courageous but it burns some of your future ability-to-speak-out-and-others-will-listen-edness.
If you were to make similar comments frequently, eventually people would just shrug it off instead of burning the mental energy to apply difficult critical thinking.
Now, I was one of those disagreeable kids who used to argue with teachers when they got their math or chemistry wrong, and eventually I stopped doing that and started thinking:
"Do I want to burn some of my speak-out-and-people-will-listen-edness on this particular topic?" Because you only have so much, and you might want to use it on something important later.
Does the tree submission get submitted and voted if it's not Paul Graham or another very admired poster? Probably not. But it's a minor thing to take a banner up against, and it just oh-so-slightly decreases the resources you have by taking up that banner. And maybe it minorly gets on the nerves of a few people, and they don't like it, and so you get oh-so-very-slightly less attention/goodwill in the future.
Or maybe not. Just something to ponder.
This is a bit disorganized, but I'll try to lay out how the gears are turning in my head:
When you implicitly call out a community or someone very admired in that community (whose also running things for free for a lot of people's enjoyment), it's courageous but it burns some of your future ability-to-speak-out-and-others-will-listen-edness.
If you were to make similar comments frequently, eventually people would just shrug it off instead of burning the mental energy to apply difficult critical thinking.
Now, I was one of those disagreeable kids who used to argue with teachers when they got their math or chemistry wrong, and eventually I stopped doing that and started thinking:
"Do I want to burn some of my speak-out-and-people-will-listen-edness on this particular topic?" Because you only have so much, and you might want to use it on something important later.
Does the tree submission get submitted and voted if it's not Paul Graham or another very admired poster? Probably not. But it's a minor thing to take a banner up against, and it just oh-so-slightly decreases the resources you have by taking up that banner. And maybe it minorly gets on the nerves of a few people, and they don't like it, and so you get oh-so-very-slightly less attention/goodwill in the future.
Or maybe not. Just something to ponder.
I was one of those disagreeable kids who used to argue with teachers when they got their math or chemistry wrong, and eventually I stopped doing that
That's depressing. That's what education is supposed to be about (rather than blindly accepting incorrect facts).
That's depressing. That's what education is supposed to be about (rather than blindly accepting incorrect facts).
Yes. lionhearted's example illustrates quite well the reason today's schools are generally incompatible with good education.
There are good ways and bad ways to go about it.
You have to think about your goal. Is your goal to get the teacher to correct their mistake and move forward? Or is it to boost your ego?
If it's the former, it's probably better to approach them later, in private, and point it out politely. They will correct the problem next session, or send out an email between sessions.
Either that, or be very polite, e.g., "Excuse me, Mr. Smith, but you wrote down <wrong stuff> there. Why isn't it <right stuff>?"
If you say, "Mr. Smith, you're wrong. It should be <right stuff>, not <wrong stuff>" you are strictly speaking correct, but you'll humiliate them. It feels good for your ego -- I'm smarter than the teacher! -- but probably won't advance the class.
This isn't about the "sorry state of education," it's about knowing what people feel when you blurt shit out in class.
You have to think about your goal. Is your goal to get the teacher to correct their mistake and move forward? Or is it to boost your ego?
If it's the former, it's probably better to approach them later, in private, and point it out politely. They will correct the problem next session, or send out an email between sessions.
Either that, or be very polite, e.g., "Excuse me, Mr. Smith, but you wrote down <wrong stuff> there. Why isn't it <right stuff>?"
If you say, "Mr. Smith, you're wrong. It should be <right stuff>, not <wrong stuff>" you are strictly speaking correct, but you'll humiliate them. It feels good for your ego -- I'm smarter than the teacher! -- but probably won't advance the class.
This isn't about the "sorry state of education," it's about knowing what people feel when you blurt shit out in class.
Why is it the student's responsibility to protect the teacher's ego?
Here is the admittedly unusual way in which I look at it: In most cases, the school system (including the teachers) is implicitly claiming that students are better off in school with them than anywhere else. When a ludicrous claim like this is being made and enforced, I don't see why they should be cut so much slack.
Here is the admittedly unusual way in which I look at it: In most cases, the school system (including the teachers) is implicitly claiming that students are better off in school with them than anywhere else. When a ludicrous claim like this is being made and enforced, I don't see why they should be cut so much slack.
It's not the student's responsibility to protect the teacher's ego, it's the student's responsibility to be reasonable. Standing up and yelling because the teacher forgot a semicolon in some example code, for instance, is a waste of everyone's time, not just the teacher's.
Your somewhat extreme example notwithstanding, are you saying it's unreasonable for a student to point it out when a teacher is giving incorrect information to the class?
I'm saying "It depends." My experience with that behavior indicates that it's usually counterproductive- either nitpicking like my previous example, or axe grinding that isn't really helping. Think an Ayn Rand follower interrupting a class on Marxism every few moments.
The problem, really, is that it's impossible to make a fully qualified statement and still be engaging. As a speaker, you have to skip over some detail somewhere, thus there is always going to be a place to jump in and act an ass.
The problem, really, is that it's impossible to make a fully qualified statement and still be engaging. As a speaker, you have to skip over some detail somewhere, thus there is always going to be a place to jump in and act an ass.
Interesting post, but since a lot of people here seem to make a big deal about their objectivity, I can see why this would annoy TriinT enough that he'd post about it. As you imply, he might've thought about it and decided it was worth risking some of that goodwill.
I stand by my comment. My opinion is based on evidence: some high-karma members can get away with stuff other members can't get away with. If a newbie posted about oaks getting hacked, the post would be flagged right away. Of course, since PG runs HN, the community should indeed cut him some slack as a token of gratitude.
My comment was an attack on the herd phenomenon, not on PG. It was not meant to offend anyone. If it does offend anyone, well, I really don't care. If it burns some of my future ability-to-speak-out-and-others-will-listen-edness, then I don't care either. Worst case scenario, I can always join with a new username, like IamNotTriinT.
My comment was an attack on the herd phenomenon, not on PG. It was not meant to offend anyone. If it does offend anyone, well, I really don't care. If it burns some of my future ability-to-speak-out-and-others-will-listen-edness, then I don't care either. Worst case scenario, I can always join with a new username, like IamNotTriinT.
I agree that the comments shouldn't offend anyone.
I disagree with your reasoning, though. This neighborhood is (apparently) pretty well known in Ye Olde Silicone Valley(e). That being the case, I'll bet any number of nerd bloggers or private individuals could have written it up and gotten upvotes; perhaps not as many, but that's not a problem unless you dislike the idea of reputations in general.
The other factor to consider is this: that the people upvoting are aware that PG has more clout than the average poster, are aware that this is a slightly less-hackerly story, and are upvoting it because they approve of the additional attention PG can help bring to it.
I disagree with your reasoning, though. This neighborhood is (apparently) pretty well known in Ye Olde Silicone Valley(e). That being the case, I'll bet any number of nerd bloggers or private individuals could have written it up and gotten upvotes; perhaps not as many, but that's not a problem unless you dislike the idea of reputations in general.
The other factor to consider is this: that the people upvoting are aware that PG has more clout than the average poster, are aware that this is a slightly less-hackerly story, and are upvoting it because they approve of the additional attention PG can help bring to it.
"Silicone Valley"? Isn't that the place with wall to wall topless clubs?
Please note that my initial comment was a reply to a comment on herd behavior, not a statement that oak tree hacking in non-kosher. In any case, I would much rather read about oak trees than yet another retarded TechCrunch article...
This isn't utterly pointless. I'm glad I know about it, and I wouldn't have without this essay.
Or were you just saying "in general"? If so, point me to something PG has put online that is utterly pointless. He has a remarkably good filter for useful content, even within his own essays there are rarely sentences that are extra.
Or were you just saying "in general"? If so, point me to something PG has put online that is utterly pointless. He has a remarkably good filter for useful content, even within his own essays there are rarely sentences that are extra.
You're reading way too much in my comment...
For starters, I didn't say that the story about oaks getting hacked is pointless. Note also that I didn't say that PG puts pointless essays online.
My comment was on what PG comments on HN. If somebody asks PG a question and he briefly replies "yes", the comment gets upvoted beyond what is reasonable, even if it's the question, NOT the answer, that carries the interesting information. Hell, a Y/N answer only carries 1 bit of information...
I was trying to point out that, contrary to popular belief, HN is not immune to herd phenomena. In a way, this might be a good sign. It shows that we're humans. It shows that computers haven't yet passed the Turing test.
For starters, I didn't say that the story about oaks getting hacked is pointless. Note also that I didn't say that PG puts pointless essays online.
My comment was on what PG comments on HN. If somebody asks PG a question and he briefly replies "yes", the comment gets upvoted beyond what is reasonable, even if it's the question, NOT the answer, that carries the interesting information. Hell, a Y/N answer only carries 1 bit of information...
I was trying to point out that, contrary to popular belief, HN is not immune to herd phenomena. In a way, this might be a good sign. It shows that we're humans. It shows that computers haven't yet passed the Turing test.
One genuine full-entropy bit of information on an important subject can be very valuable. You can double your wealth with one bit. (Toy example: you know whether a roulette wheel is going to come up red or black next time. You stake everything you own on the outcome. There are of course less-toy examples and less hair-raising ways to make money out of bits.) It doesn't take all that many bits to state (e.g.) Maxwell's equations.
I largely agree with you about this post, though I don't mind its being here and I read it with interest despite not living anywhere near Silicon Valley. And I agree that PG gets much more karma than a clone who happened not to be called PG would (which suggests an interesting experiment...), and that that's kinda silly. But don't disparage bits.
I largely agree with you about this post, though I don't mind its being here and I read it with interest despite not living anywhere near Silicon Valley. And I agree that PG gets much more karma than a clone who happened not to be called PG would (which suggests an interesting experiment...), and that that's kinda silly. But don't disparage bits.
"One genuine full-entropy bit of information on an important subject can be very valuable."
Oh, it sure can! For instance, suppose that we're back in 1986. The Microsoft IPO has just taken place. I ask God if Microsoft will ever be a huge success, and God tells me: "yes". There you go, 1 bit of information that would have made me very rich. However, despite the worship, I have doubts that PG has become himself God. Hence, his 1-bit answers are less valuable than God's 1-bit answers ;-)
Oh, it sure can! For instance, suppose that we're back in 1986. The Microsoft IPO has just taken place. I ask God if Microsoft will ever be a huge success, and God tells me: "yes". There you go, 1 bit of information that would have made me very rich. However, despite the worship, I have doubts that PG has become himself God. Hence, his 1-bit answers are less valuable than God's 1-bit answers ;-)
Assuming for the sake of argument that in 1986 you'd have expected Microsoft not to be a huge success, a "yes" answer to that question would have been considerably more than 1 bit of new information for you. (And therefore, of course, a "no" answer would have been somewhat less than 1 bit of new information.)
Of course I agree that a bit from PG is not as reliable as a bit from God (making the obviously-necessary assumptions about God). But that's not a problem about bits. :-)
Of course I agree that a bit from PG is not as reliable as a bit from God (making the obviously-necessary assumptions about God). But that's not a problem about bits. :-)
Silly. First of all, pg virtually never writes anything pointless. Even if he does, a little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men.
At any rate, pg is a recursive input to the hn community. Part of this community is pg. Part of this community is you and me, too, but a bigger part is him.
A large part of why I came here in the first place is pg's essays, which span the gamut. I came to think of him as a clear thinker, so I'm going to pay more than usual attention to anything he has to say.
At any rate, pg is a recursive input to the hn community. Part of this community is pg. Part of this community is you and me, too, but a bigger part is him.
A large part of why I came here in the first place is pg's essays, which span the gamut. I came to think of him as a clear thinker, so I'm going to pay more than usual attention to anything he has to say.
Please note that "virtually never" is weaker than "never". In any case, thanks for your input. Your misguided fanboyism greatly amuses me...
No one (yes, this includes you) can apprehend what's true and make decisions only by reason and observation. We use heuristics, such as giving extra weight to the opinions of other smart people. In the olden days, they called it respect.
All the people I respect this way can unashamedly and unreservedly admit to respecting other people themselves. When it's mutual, it's called friendship. Sometimes it's called love.
:)
All the people I respect this way can unashamedly and unreservedly admit to respecting other people themselves. When it's mutual, it's called friendship. Sometimes it's called love.
:)
In my book there's a difference between respect and adulation. Sure, a high-karma member is likely well-known by the community (especially if he has a track record of solid and insightful comments) and will likely get away with a silly comment once in a while. This is natural.
I just wanted to stir things up a bit and stress that dissent can be good. If HN ever becomes a monoculture due to excessive inbreeding and indoctrination, it will become uninteresting because everyone will think the same. There's richness in variety of ideas / opinions.
I just wanted to stir things up a bit and stress that dissent can be good. If HN ever becomes a monoculture due to excessive inbreeding and indoctrination, it will become uninteresting because everyone will think the same. There's richness in variety of ideas / opinions.
Interesting. Where I grew up (San Luis Obispo county in CA), you'd need an act of congress to touch a mature oak tree–even on your own property. Our church actually had to build around one when they did a building project.
I bet if an entrepreneur or real estate developer wanted to cut down oak trees for a building project, they wouldn't get past the first step in the permit process ... but I guess when city wants them gone, they can run it through a "Development" association and play the disease card.
I bet if an entrepreneur or real estate developer wanted to cut down oak trees for a building project, they wouldn't get past the first step in the permit process ... but I guess when city wants them gone, they can run it through a "Development" association and play the disease card.
You can't cut down a mature tree on your own property in Palo Alto either. But apparently the city can.
Pity the issue of cutting down the trees wasn't seen before it happened. Browsing through the local news it appears PA doesn't see much value in parks, trees "Guest Opinion: A glimpse back at the history of Palo Alto parks-dedication battles", Enid Pearson ("Initiator of the 1965 citizens' initiative that resulted in the City Charter provision on dedicating city parkland") ~ http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/story.php?story_id=1157...
I'm sure I'll be in the minority here, but doesn't that seem to stretch the meaning of 'your own property'? I mean, if you can't even cut the trees down, what exactly makes it 'yours'? (aside from the privilege of paying takes on it)
"Owning property," at least in the United States, is just a fancy term for describing renting property from the government. The price you pay for the property buys you the contract, property taxes are your rent, and anytime they feel like it they can evict you (eminent domain). And like all landlords, even those as generally hands-off as the government, at the end of the day, they make the rules.
Someone joked a while ago that they suspect you are tailing the logfiles to see who votes you up, I thought it was rubbish at the time, but after seeing this comment and the number of votes I'm beginning to doubt ;)
When you make the rules, you also make the exceptions.
What's the going rate for a bag of termites in San Luis Obispo?
They probably took advantage of some neighborhood association clause. You would at least think that they would have asked the residents first, though.
Private owners respect and conserve their resources.
Governments (which is to say, politicians with short lifespans in their job) use up resources in a rush to accomplish short term, idiotic goals.
You can look at the environmental records of capitalist countries versus centrally managed totalitarian states.
...or you can look at golf courses (which don't "cut down all the trees to keep things tidy") and compare them to the government of Palo Alto.
Governments (which is to say, politicians with short lifespans in their job) use up resources in a rush to accomplish short term, idiotic goals.
You can look at the environmental records of capitalist countries versus centrally managed totalitarian states.
...or you can look at golf courses (which don't "cut down all the trees to keep things tidy") and compare them to the government of Palo Alto.
strange, because in my country, it was during communism, that a lot of trees were planted, both parks/forest, and agricultural one.
If dear leader wanted a artificial lake, with lots of trees, next to his villa, he would get it. If he thought lots of lemon trees, and olive trees were awesome, bared hills will be transformed to accommodate all these trees.
And it was during the transition to democracy, (and even today), that a whole of these things started getting destroyed.
We are talking about commmon areas. As for private property, I can safely say that most europeans love trees.
As another anectode, there are some streets in SF where trees are completely missing. And it usually corresponds with the density of asian population. It seems that there is something about a tree, in front of the house/door that hinders the chi flow, or something.
But go to Clement st. and there are trees where the more euro shops are, and just a few blocks down, there is little trees where the asian stores are.
Some things can be cultural also.
If dear leader wanted a artificial lake, with lots of trees, next to his villa, he would get it. If he thought lots of lemon trees, and olive trees were awesome, bared hills will be transformed to accommodate all these trees.
And it was during the transition to democracy, (and even today), that a whole of these things started getting destroyed.
We are talking about commmon areas. As for private property, I can safely say that most europeans love trees.
As another anectode, there are some streets in SF where trees are completely missing. And it usually corresponds with the density of asian population. It seems that there is something about a tree, in front of the house/door that hinders the chi flow, or something.
But go to Clement st. and there are trees where the more euro shops are, and just a few blocks down, there is little trees where the asian stores are.
Some things can be cultural also.
> Private owners respect and conserve their resources
> politicians [...] use up resources in a rush
> to accomplish short term, idiotic goals.
Or when the goals are decided by the private owners who bought them lunch.
I think you missed the point. If the property in question were privately owned, then the goals concerning the property would be the owners' goals, not the politicians' goals. To the extent that the politicians' goals control property, the property isn't privately owned (except for the corner case of property the politicians privately own).
I think you missed the point. If the property in question were privately owned, then the goals concerning the property would be the owners' goals, not the politicians' goals. To the extent that the politicians' goals control property, the property isn't privately owned (except for the corner case of property the politicians privately own).
Allow me to reformulate my point for clarity:
1. Politicians don't always mismanage publicly owned resources
2. When they do, it is often on behalf of a private interest, e.g. a real estate developer contributing to their next campaign
1. Politicians don't always mismanage publicly owned resources
2. When they do, it is often on behalf of a private interest, e.g. a real estate developer contributing to their next campaign
Private owners that don't conserve their resources quickly find themselves without resources to conserve; governments that don't conserve their resources get another chance.
Many things get in the way of this simple statement being true.
Many things get in the way of this simple statement being true.
That's disingenuous.
While this act was clearly one of government bureaucracy run amok, to suggest that the same thing doesn't happen on private land is patently absurd.
While this act was clearly one of government bureaucracy run amok, to suggest that the same thing doesn't happen on private land is patently absurd.
Right, golf courses only cut most of the trees because they are in the way of their fairways. And then they poison the water for the entire area by using all kinds of chemicals in order to keep their grass in a ridiculous unnaturally green color and the course free of animals that may disturb the neatness of the grass.
Sorry you cannot make such blanket statements, some times governments do terrible things for the environment and sometimes businesses do the same. People that care about the environment should be vigilant and hold both governments and businesses accountable.
Sorry you cannot make such blanket statements, some times governments do terrible things for the environment and sometimes businesses do the same. People that care about the environment should be vigilant and hold both governments and businesses accountable.
I'd say that totalitarian states tend to have governments that last longer than in capitalist countries (even though I feel that the capitalistic aspect is not related to the totalitarian part…), thus I'd say that capitalist countries are more likely to want to "accomplish short term, idiotic goals".
From Palo Alto Online - California Avenue trees get the axe:
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=13827
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=13827
I like Cal Ave partly because it's about as close as you can get in this area to my favorite neighborhood in Seattle (15th Ave).
A photo I took yesterday while they were taking the last one down:
http://openbs.org/photo/wehavenotrees.jpg
Quote from the notice they sent out:
"The City of Palo Alto Public Works Department ... shall be replacing most of the street trees on Cal Ave ... most of the existing trees are Holly Oaks and many of them are diseased and in poor condition. Their branches cover street lights and grow over building storefronts and roofs requiring frequent tree trimming. They bear and drop large acorn fruits that are tripping hazards for pedestrians.
"The Holly Oaks will be replaced with Red Maples ... smaller seed fruits that are safer for pedestrians ... metal grates will be installed ... which will bring a uniform look to the business district. The existing tree wells in sidewalks are open wells which may be tripping hazards."
Funny thing is there are maples on 15th Ave so I've seen how they are through the year. When the maples start dropping sap on people's cars and all of the restaurants' outdoor furniture is too sticky to sit on I don't know what they'll do. I'll just laugh.
A photo I took yesterday while they were taking the last one down:
http://openbs.org/photo/wehavenotrees.jpg
Quote from the notice they sent out:
"The City of Palo Alto Public Works Department ... shall be replacing most of the street trees on Cal Ave ... most of the existing trees are Holly Oaks and many of them are diseased and in poor condition. Their branches cover street lights and grow over building storefronts and roofs requiring frequent tree trimming. They bear and drop large acorn fruits that are tripping hazards for pedestrians.
"The Holly Oaks will be replaced with Red Maples ... smaller seed fruits that are safer for pedestrians ... metal grates will be installed ... which will bring a uniform look to the business district. The existing tree wells in sidewalks are open wells which may be tripping hazards."
Funny thing is there are maples on 15th Ave so I've seen how they are through the year. When the maples start dropping sap on people's cars and all of the restaurants' outdoor furniture is too sticky to sit on I don't know what they'll do. I'll just laugh.
That's a terrible before-and-after picture (comparing your link to the picture in pg's article). The before picture was beautiful--the after picture quite frankly looks as stark and depressing as an average eastern Washington farm town. Longer, though.
"…which will bring a uniform look to the business district…"
Sweet, with a little more effort they can turn all of California avenue into a strip mall. Uniformity is great in pencil leads and spark plugs, but the fractal beauty of nature is not just a sitcom on Fox. If you want uniformity, there's a few towns due south of LA where they shave the rough, non-uniform hill-sides into perfect 45° slopes to ultra-flat plateaus on which to build uniform tract homes.
This just doesn't seem like something Palo Altans would knowingly do. Well, we'll always have Los Altos: http://www.losaltospost.com/PhotoGallery/photo/fullimages/Fu...
Sweet, with a little more effort they can turn all of California avenue into a strip mall. Uniformity is great in pencil leads and spark plugs, but the fractal beauty of nature is not just a sitcom on Fox. If you want uniformity, there's a few towns due south of LA where they shave the rough, non-uniform hill-sides into perfect 45° slopes to ultra-flat plateaus on which to build uniform tract homes.
This just doesn't seem like something Palo Altans would knowingly do. Well, we'll always have Los Altos: http://www.losaltospost.com/PhotoGallery/photo/fullimages/Fu...
One of the things I love about the older bits of town here in Padova is that stuff is 'fractal' in the way you describe. You can look at some old buildings and see the interesting and somewhat random ways different portions grew together. Up close you can sometimes see an old fresco or a fancy door or something. You can walk around and see stuff you've seen before and not get bored by the sameness of it all. I think it's healthy for your brain.
That picture looks ... AWFUL.
It looks like the bad parts of the meat-packing-plant town in rural Minnesota where I grew up. No, strike that -- it looks much, much worse.
It looks like the bad parts of the meat-packing-plant town in rural Minnesota where I grew up. No, strike that -- it looks much, much worse.
When I read the post from pg, I thought, what's the big deal. I hadn't been to that particular street or remember it from one or two travels to Palo Alto, but when I saw your picture, the before and after, I got sad inside. Why do that?
I felt a sense of lost power. Lost depth and age and history. The trees were tall and powerful and wise.
And now they are gone. :( I miss them and I never knew them.
I felt a sense of lost power. Lost depth and age and history. The trees were tall and powerful and wise.
And now they are gone. :( I miss them and I never knew them.
The before/after comparison is shocking.
Sure, it looks ugly now, but I think it'll look decent in two years, and pretty good in five. I actually agree that it will look better with uniform height trees than gradually replacing trees. It just doesn't seem like that huge of a deal. The street is temporarily ugly. This too shall pass.
It looks like a street in LA.
Heh ... I'm certainly not into "US-bashing", but I can't help think that someone could do quite a lot of that fueled by that particular quote. The City of P.A. thinks it needs to protect its residents from the tripping hazards of ... acorns? Hilarious. :)
Sounds like the people on the beautification project had a lot of inbreeding of ideas. Crap like that just seems a way to justify a decision. I mean how many people actually tripped on those tree wells or on acorns on the ground? How much money is it costing to tear down those old trees and replace them with new ones?
This is just a small number of people trying to force their idea of what will look good onto the larger community. Bringing in things like 'tripping hazard' and 'the seeds are more pedestrian friendly' are just way to try and justify their actions/views against people that are outside of their group. It sounds good and all about wanting the trees to be a uniform height, but I suspect that decision was made partially because they expected there to be public outcry. They just wanted to tear down the trees without giving people a chance to rally against the action. Now people are stuck with the decision whether they like it or not.
This is just a small number of people trying to force their idea of what will look good onto the larger community. Bringing in things like 'tripping hazard' and 'the seeds are more pedestrian friendly' are just way to try and justify their actions/views against people that are outside of their group. It sounds good and all about wanting the trees to be a uniform height, but I suspect that decision was made partially because they expected there to be public outcry. They just wanted to tear down the trees without giving people a chance to rally against the action. Now people are stuck with the decision whether they like it or not.
They may have suffered from Sudden Oak Death. My limited understanding is that because the disease spreads erratically they prefer to remove infected trees in order to prevent others from becoming infected, and to prevent damage being caused from the dead, weakened tree.
Edit: It appears there is no known cure, only preemptive measures.
http://www.suddenoakdeath.org/
Edit: It appears there is no known cure, only preemptive measures.
http://www.suddenoakdeath.org/
At first I thought it might be some kind of serious disease. Why else would they do such a crazy thing? But all the other arguments the city listed, e.g.
"Their branches cover street lights and grow over building storefronts and roofs requiring frequent tree trimming. They bear and drop large acorn fruits that are tripping hazards for pedestrians."
make it clear this wasn't the case. If they were infected by some tree plague, it would have been enough to say just that.
"Their branches cover street lights and grow over building storefronts and roofs requiring frequent tree trimming. They bear and drop large acorn fruits that are tripping hazards for pedestrians."
make it clear this wasn't the case. If they were infected by some tree plague, it would have been enough to say just that.
Sounds more like the business owners didn't like the trees and wanted to get rid of them. All other reasons are probably just there to justify it in a way that doesn't make them look like the 'bad guys.'
There seems to be a high incidence of Sudden Oak Death in areas populated by aesthetically-impaired bureaucrats. I recommend a study to determine whether they constitute a potential vector for the spread of the disease, and if so, preemptively eradicating them.
That was my first thought too. Here a PBS QUEST feature about sudden oak death in California: http://www.kqed.org/quest/radio/sudden-oak-death
Something I don't understand: cities and counties in California are said to be broke, so how is it that the Palo Alto public works department is able to send out a work crew to cut down these oak trees? Is Palo Alto running a surplus that they need to spend before its fiscal year is over?
They've been doing road work up and down College Ave all year, too, so presumably they have money for something.
absolutely terrible.
Yeah this is really bad. First of all too many people have the silly idea that you can move trees around as if they are pieces of furniture or large heavy pieces of sculpture. "Oh lets get rid of these trees and put in different ones. Won't this be grand!" Moving trees is always tricky and not assured of success. When they get those new maple trees in california ave, I am sure that at least a couple of them will die and then they won't have equal height trees.
As far as the trees being diseased, all city trees are unhealthy in one way or another. That is because their leaves absorb all kinds of exhaust byproducts, most of their roots are below concrete where they cannot get water or nutrients, and a hundred other reasons. Cities are just not healthy places for trees.
But that does not mean that we should not have trees in cities. Trees make us feel better, clear up the air for us and make us happier in general. What if a tree is not healthy -- it is not actually suffering and cannot pass the disease to humans. As long as it looks good and it is green, it is serving its purpose. I guarantee you that the new maples they put in will become diseased pretty soon.
So, good idea to call attention to this Paul, but someone should have thought of it earlier.
As far as the trees being diseased, all city trees are unhealthy in one way or another. That is because their leaves absorb all kinds of exhaust byproducts, most of their roots are below concrete where they cannot get water or nutrients, and a hundred other reasons. Cities are just not healthy places for trees.
But that does not mean that we should not have trees in cities. Trees make us feel better, clear up the air for us and make us happier in general. What if a tree is not healthy -- it is not actually suffering and cannot pass the disease to humans. As long as it looks good and it is green, it is serving its purpose. I guarantee you that the new maples they put in will become diseased pretty soon.
So, good idea to call attention to this Paul, but someone should have thought of it earlier.
Maybe someone should track these people down in a few years when the new trees are installed. Tell them that the new trees are diseased and need to be completely replaced a second time. Then ask them what their opinion is. If their opinion is, "There's nothing wrong with those trees." Then you know that the axed the oaks just because they preferred maples... no other reason.
I can't recall the details any more, but I'm reminded that there's a historic cemetery in Boston, where several of America's founders are buried, where the tombstones have all been moved from their original locations. Someone during the Victorian period decided they'd look nicer if they were all arranged in nice straight rows. Nobody recorded their original positions, so the locations of the remains are now unknown.
So, cutting the trees isn't necessarily a case of corruption. It's at least as likely that CAADA is run by people whose taste really is that poor.
So, cutting the trees isn't necessarily a case of corruption. It's at least as likely that CAADA is run by people whose taste really is that poor.
The point is that such a drastic action (e.g. cutting down ALL the trees on a frequented, busy downtown area) should be voted on by the citizens/tax-payers. In this case, a relatively small number of people instituted a drastic change without consulting 99% of the people that it would affect. Not only that, but it is an IRREVERSIBLE change. If they had decided to repave the sidewalks or repaint the lampposts, it would be a different story. Had it been a single tree or only a couple of trees (that weren't prominently display -- e.g. signifying the center of town or something) it might be excusable. But to tear down that many trees without any sort of public input on the matter other than 'the public tasked us with beautifying the city' is irresponsible at best and malicious at worse.
This will have adverse effects on the speed and traffic on that street, too. I've attended a couple of local community seminars on city planning, and studies cited there have found that tree-lined streets tend to cause drivers to drive slower and more cautiously. [1]
[1]: For example: http://www.naturewithin.info/Roadside/Tree&Driver_ITE.pd...
[1]: For example: http://www.naturewithin.info/Roadside/Tree&Driver_ITE.pd...
Very relevant. He says very eloquently everything that's wrong with American city planning, with pictures. He doesn't mince words, either.
This reminds of the time they chopped down all the trees along Fergusson College Road in Pune. It was one of the most beautiful streets in the city with trees on both sides forming a canopy almost covering the entire street.
The excuse then was creating more space for vehicles and improving traffic flow.
The trees are gone; the traffic jams haven't. Very sad.
The excuse then was creating more space for vehicles and improving traffic flow.
The trees are gone; the traffic jams haven't. Very sad.
It is sad though, that Cal. Ave, is considered on the most nicer areas of Sillicon Valley. There is nothing really special in it that you can't find in any dinky town in the us, minus the charm that small towns have. Compare to any nice areas to Cambridge, or W. D.C. or NYC, or Boulder. With the money flowing in the area, that that's what they can achieve? At least during the gilded age, the rich folks built memorial things, that are part of this country's cultural heritage. Todays' rich, just build bigger pools or planes, and that's it.
Tells you something about rich geeks being really introverted, and just want to keep on themselves.
Tells you something about rich geeks being really introverted, and just want to keep on themselves.
California Ave. is notably nice because that pattern of building is now illegal in most parts of the Bay Area and the United States as a whole. People like visiting walkable cities and the walkable enclaves of their own suburbs, but if someone actually proposes building something like that, people raise hell.
"Mixed-use is not appropriate for this site," Palmer said. "It impinges on the little residential neighborhood that's been developed."
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/story.php?story_id=1080...
Read the descriptions of the projects and see how remarkably tiny they are. Then read the comments. It's quite sad.
"Mixed-use is not appropriate for this site," Palmer said. "It impinges on the little residential neighborhood that's been developed."
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/story.php?story_id=1080...
Read the descriptions of the projects and see how remarkably tiny they are. Then read the comments. It's quite sad.
Reminds me of the parochial mindset that caused me to leave Connecticut: residents on tiny twisty roads in wealthy old towns that didn't want a yellow centerline or white edge markers painted on the road because it "would lose its character." Forget all the automotive deaths attributed to people coming around blind corners too close to the middle of the road. Forget drivers in the rain or fog who can't tell where the road ends and the ditch begins. "It spoils the character" of the roadway, and that's more important than safety.
Idiots!
Idiots!
Then ban cars. Seems like a simple solution to me.
:)
:)
When I first moved to the Bay Area, I was puzzled by how "blah" Silicon Valley is. The land of innovation is suburbia and strip malls? A cultural desert? My manager at Palm, who had grown up in Cupertino, said that Sunnyvale and Cupertino were "the two most boring towns in America".
Did they outside all beauty and culture to San Francisco? Or did they just not care?
Did they outside all beauty and culture to San Francisco? Or did they just not care?
Silicon Valley does have some of the most beautiful, innovative office parks in the world. They're huge and isolated, however. Maybe the combination of strict zoning and ubiquitous automobiles aggregates retail into malls and strip malls, commercial into office parks, industrial into warehouse districts, etc.? Regardless, it's produced a grand, metropolitan brutalism of inhuman scale, navigable only by automobile, with the humane portions grandfathered-in between the cracks and targeted for extinction by city-planners, bureaucrats, and real estate developers.
Same here. My biggest whitebread shock was a couple of weeks after my arrival from Argentina. We went to have a coffe after dinner with a friend, and the Starbucks closed on us at 9:00PM!
We ended up drinking our coffees in the parking lot. So much for the Silicon Valley bohemian life...
We ended up drinking our coffees in the parking lot. So much for the Silicon Valley bohemian life...
Amen to that. Yeah put up some monuments!
I used to think most American cities were ugly because nobody cared enough to make them beautiful. Reading this almost makes me think it's intentional. Very sad indeed.
American cities are designed around the automobile. The rare American city that's designed to be beautiful (Portland, for instance) is impossible to drive in, while cities that can be driven in are almost necessarily inhuman sprawl.
You'd think that, as a trade-off, American cities would be usable for motorists. But traffic congestion is such a big problem that it's impossible to build a city to satisfy even that requirement.
You'd think that, as a trade-off, American cities would be usable for motorists. But traffic congestion is such a big problem that it's impossible to build a city to satisfy even that requirement.
Are there any Maple trees that do not either drop sap or other liquids or large seed pods? We're all familiar with the mess the former makes of our cars and sidewalks. The latter, at least the ones from Sugar Maples, are a real pain in the ass, clogging storm drains and such.
This might be unconnected, but having just read PG's piece on publishing, and being in the local news business, it seems as though there may have been meetings about this decision? Published in the local newspaper perhaps?
At least, most developments and streetscaping projects around here don't go down with at least a (public) city council vote.
I'm not sure what my point is... maybe just that I'm curious what the local media coverage of this is/was?
At least, most developments and streetscaping projects around here don't go down with at least a (public) city council vote.
I'm not sure what my point is... maybe just that I'm curious what the local media coverage of this is/was?
Is the old Kirk's hamburger joint still there? Wonderful place.
(This is dating me--haven't been back there for 20 years.)
(This is dating me--haven't been back there for 20 years.)
There's no longer a Kirk's on California. The Palo Alto location moved over to Town & Country village a couple miles away. Kirk's has a few other locations in nearby towns too, though, so I suspect it was more because the California Ave. location was getting old and run down than financial troubles.
Plenty of Oak trees still here in Cambridge PG as I'm sure you recall. Just beautiful this time of year. =)
I'd miss them if they were gone too.
I'd miss them if they were gone too.
Your tax dollars at work.
It's no wonder that the State of California is bankrupt.
While the state of California is piling on _billions_ of dollars in debt to pay for unionized wellfare programs, raising tax rates across the board on its citizens, cutting essential city and state services, closing state parks, issuing "IOU's" to people in-lieu of tax refunds, and seeing its general obligation bonds downgraded below "junk" status, it apparently is still OK to spend taxpayer money cutting down perfectly healthy trees to make sure that all of the trees on a street are the same height.
This in a state that has more Honda Prius' per-capita than any other state in the union.
Isn't being "green" wonderful?
I'm sure there's an entire office of twinkie-munching government bureaucrats that could be fired to compensate the California tax-payer for this gross misappropriation of his hard-earned tax dollars.
It's no wonder that the State of California is bankrupt.
While the state of California is piling on _billions_ of dollars in debt to pay for unionized wellfare programs, raising tax rates across the board on its citizens, cutting essential city and state services, closing state parks, issuing "IOU's" to people in-lieu of tax refunds, and seeing its general obligation bonds downgraded below "junk" status, it apparently is still OK to spend taxpayer money cutting down perfectly healthy trees to make sure that all of the trees on a street are the same height.
This in a state that has more Honda Prius' per-capita than any other state in the union.
Isn't being "green" wonderful?
I'm sure there's an entire office of twinkie-munching government bureaucrats that could be fired to compensate the California tax-payer for this gross misappropriation of his hard-earned tax dollars.
@earthlink.net for the Mayor? Ouch! He probably has a Flowbee and a Zack Morris bag phone to boot.
I emailed the guy and got a response.
If governments have so much power that they can demolish well loved landmarks in the center of American entrepreneurship, imagine what they can do to a whole state or even country...wait a minute.
What needs to happen to save the state and country is the exact opposite of this travesty-entrepreneurs should replace the real deadwood, government on every level.
http://lewrockwell.com
What needs to happen to save the state and country is the exact opposite of this travesty-entrepreneurs should replace the real deadwood, government on every level.
http://lewrockwell.com
People should be pissed about this for a number of reasons. PG--I suggest putting their phone numbers up. Emails are too easy to ignore.
Hmm... tell me again why I would want to live in Silicon Valley?
Could the trees have been infected by Dutch Elm Disease? I've regrettably seen many old trees cut down from it, and you can't see much damage until it has progressed significantly. Granted, I've never seen it affect an entire street full of trees at once, so that seems suspicious...
A similar situation almost occurred in my home town of Galway, Ireland. The main square, Eyre square, has historically been shaded by trees - Wikipedia says early ash was planted in 1631 - but the council wanted to remove 80 of 105 of them, "because the landscape levels were to be altered".
There was a lot of opposition, though, and eventually they backed down.
There was a lot of opposition, though, and eventually they backed down.
I drove by today on El Camino and I thought it looked naked. Now I know why. Freaky. That said, I had a diseased oak lose a limb , if it had hit someone , or my car, it would have really done some damage.
Acorns are a tripping hazard? I have never been especially graceful, I have lived under oaks for about half the last thirty years--including at least four that were astonishingly productive of acorns, and bless me if I've ever tripped on an acorn.
It happens - my aunt broke her tailbone after slipping on acorns. I don't blame the city one bit. Oak trees are beautiful trees for forests and parks, but they are very messy for public walkways. They drop small branches constantly as well as piles of acorns that attract squirrels and mice.
I don't mind talking about trees.
The bigger picture behind this concept is urban planning, which is a huge issue to be fixed in the U.S. (if you want sustainable development).
The bigger picture behind this concept is urban planning, which is a huge issue to be fixed in the U.S. (if you want sustainable development).
The fact that it's ranked so highly just goes to show the amount of ass kissing going on here.