mm SB 436 ■ .C65 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^M ■' '^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H '^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^1 ■^^■& • '^ A^^ *^ /^:^i^'% ^<-^<>- ./*^^^\ ^° •' O. * e / 1 •^^ VOLUME XVI MARCH. 1916 No. 8 BULLETIN OF The New York State College of Forestry AT Syracuse Univer«ity A STREET TREE SYSTEM FOR NEW YORK CITY BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN Report to Honorable Cabot Ward, Commissioner of Parks, Borought of Manliattan and Richmond, New York City. By Laurie Davidson Cox, Assistant Professor of Landscape Elngineering, The New York State College of Forestry, with an intro- duction by Dr. Hugh P. Baker, Dean of The New York State College of Forestry Puhliahed Quarterlsf by the Univtrslly Entered at the Pottoffice at Syracute ai Kcond-cIaM matter If ovogTftpb Photograph by L. D. Cox. Lower Fifth Avenue. The charm of street trees on a busy thoroughfare. One of the few examples in Manhattan which recall the tree-lined business streets of London and Paris. VOLUME XVI MARCH, 1916 No. 8 BULLETIN OF The New York State College of Forestry AT Syracuse University A STREET TREE SYSTEM FOR NEW YORK CITY BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN Report to Honorable Cabot Ward, Commissioner of Parks, Boroughs of Manhattan and Richmond, New York City. By Laurie Davidson Cox, Assistant Professor of Landscape Engineering, The New York State College of Forestry, with an intro- duction by Dr. Hugh P. Baker, Dean of The New York State College of Forestry Published Quarterly by the University Entered at the Postoffice at Syracuse as second-class matter TRUSTEES OF THE NEW YOEK STATE COLLEGE OF FORESTRY AT SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY Ex Officio Dr. James R. Day, Chancellor Syracuse LTniversity Dr. John Huston Finley, Commissioner of Edu- cation Albany, N. Y. Hon. George D. Pratt, Conservation Commis- sioner New York City. Hon. Edward Schoeneck, Lieutenant-Governor . . . Syracuse, N. Y. Appointed by the Governor Hon. Charles Andrews Syracuse, N. Y. Hon. Alexander T. Brown Syracuse, N. Y'. Hon. John R. Clancy ' Syracuse, N. Y. Hon. Harold D. Cornwall Lowville, N. Y. Bon. George W. Driscoll Syracuse, N. Y. Hon. Francis Hendricks Syracuse, N. Y. Hon. Hendrick S. Holden Syracuse, N. Y. Hon. Louis Marshall New York City. Hon. Edward H. O'Hara Syracuse, N. Y. OFFICERS OF THE BOARD President Hon. Louis Marshall. Vice-President Hon. John R. Clancy'. Treasurer Hon. Hendrick S. Holden. D, of D. APR 22 1917 (4) FACULTY OF THE NEW YORK STATE COLLEGE OF FORESTRY AT SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY JAMES ROSCOE DAY, S. T. D., D. C. L., LL. D. Chancellor of the University HUGH POTTER BAKER, M. F. (Yale 1904) ; D. Oec. (Munich 1910) Dean of the College and Prof, of Silviculture FRANK F. MOOX, B. A. (Amherst College 1901) ; M. F. (Yale 1909) Professor of Forest Engineering MAULSBY WILLETT BLACKMAN, A. B. (Univer. of Kansas 1901) ; Ph. D. (Harvard Univ. 1905) Professor of Forest Entomology EDWARD F. McCarthy, B. S. (Univ. of Michigan 1911) Professor of Forestry at State Ranger School NELSON COURTLANDT BROW^N^, B. A. (Yale College 1906) ; M. F. (Yale University 1908) Professor of Forest Utilization J. FRED BAKER, B. S. (Michigan Agricultural College 1902); M. F. (Yale University 1908) Director of Forest Investigations LEIGH H. PENNINGTON, A. B., 1907, Ph. D. (Univ. of Michigan 1909) Professor of Forest Pathology GEORGE A. GUTCHES, M. F. (University of Michigan 1910) Director of State Ranger Scliool JOHN WALLACE STEPHEN, B. A., M. S. F. (Univ. of Michigan 1907) Assistant Professor of Forest Products REUBEN PARKER PRITCHARD, B. S. (Dartmouth College 1907); M. F. (Yale University 1909) Assistant Professor of Forest Products (5) College of Forestry CHAELES CHRLSTOPHER ADAMS, B. S. (Illinois Wesleyan 1896); M. S. (Harvard Univ. 1899); Ph. D. (Chicago Univ. 1908) Assistant Professor- of Forest Zoology HENRY R. FRANCIS, B. S. (Mass. Agricultural College 1910) Assistant Professor of Landscape Extension HARRY P. BROWN, B. A. 1909, A. M. 1910, Ph. D. (Cornell Univ. 1914) Assistant Professor of Forest Botany SHIRLEY W. ALLEN, B. S. A. (Iowa State College 1909) Assistant Professor of Forest Extension LAUEIE D. COX, A. B. (Acadia College 1903) ; S. B. in Land. Arch. (Harvard University 1908) Assistant Professor of Lanscape Engineering WILLIAM A. McDonald, B. S. F. (Mich. Agricultural College 1913) Assistant Professor of Forest Extensioyi RUSSELL TAYLOR GHEEN, B. S. F. (Pennsylvania State College 1912) ; M. F. (The New York State College of Forestry 1914) Assistant Professor of Forest Extension HOWARD BLAINE WAHA, B. S. (Pennsylvania State College 1909) Assistant Professor of Forest Engineering HENRY HARRINGTON TRYON, A. B., M. F. (Harvard Univ. 1913) Instructor in Forest Utilization WILLIAM 0. ELLIS, A. B. (Lebanon Valley College 1911); M. S. (Iowa State College 1913) Instructor in Forest Entomology WALTER GRAHAM ILES, B. S. (The Neiv York State College of Forestry 1915) Field Assistant in Forest Investigations MILDRED E. WOOD, B. L. E. (Syracuse University 1914) Librarian LILLIAN M. LANG Secretary to the Dean WILFRED L. BASSETT Assistant Treasurer WALTER \V. CHIPMAN, B. S. (Wabash College 1893) Cashier MARTHA JEANETTE HARRINGTON, B. L. E. (Syracuse Univ. 1914) Recorder .1 ^^freet Tree S;/st('nt for New Yorlv Citi/ Members of University Faculty, Outside of College of Forestry, Giving Instruction to Students in Forestry FKANKLIN JAMES HOLZWARTH, Ph. D. (Syracuse) Professor of German ERNEST NOBLE PATTEE, M. S. (University of Rochester) Professor of Chemistry THOMAS CRAMER HOPKINS, Ph. D. (University of Chicago) Professor of Geology WILLIAM L. BRAY, Ph. D. (University of Chicago) Professor of Botany WARREN GARDNER BULLARD, Ph. D. (Clark University) Professor of Mathematics CHARLES HENRY RICHARDSON, Ph. D. (Dartmouth College) Professor of Mineralogy FREDERICK WILLIAM REVELS, B. Ar. (Syracuse University) Professor of Architecture LEON BRUCE HOWE, B. Ar. (Syracuse) Professor of Drawing CHARLES JULIUS KULLMER, Ph. D. (University of Tubingen) Professor of German HERBERT A. CLARK, Ph. D. (University of Nebraska) Professor of Physics MORGAN G. SANFORD, M. S. (Syracuse) Lecturer on Meteorology WILLIAM CHARLES LOWE, Ph. M. (Syracuse) Professor of German JULIAN CHASE SMALLWOOD, :M. E. (Columbia University) Associate Professor of Experimental Engineering ADOLPH CHARLES BAEBENROTH, A. M. (Harvard University) Professor of English FLOYD FISKE DECKER, Ph. D. (Syracuse) Assistant Professor of Mathematics \\aLLIAM JOHN GORSE, A. M. (Syracuse) Assistant Professor of German J. HERMAN WHARTON. A. M. (Syracuse) Assistant Professor of English S CoUc(je of Fure^frt/ HAROLD DOUGLAS BUELL, B. S. (Colgate) Iiistrncfor in L'hcinislnj ARTHUR E. BRAIXERU, M. S. (St. Laurence University, Syracuse University ) Instructor in Geology DAVID L. DUNLAP, D. Sc., M. D. Professor Physical Education and Hygiene RAYMOND T. BIRGE, Ph. D. (University of Wisconsin) Instructor in Physics CHARLES R. HOOVER, A. M. (Haverford College) Assistant Professor of Cliemistry HARRY E. BARNES, A. M. (Syracuse University) Instructor in Economics HARRY J. CARMAN, A. M. (Syracuse University) Instructor in Economics A REPORT TO HON. CABOT WARD Park Commissioner Boroughs of Manhattan and Richmond New York City BY LAURIE DAVIDSON COX Landscape Architect Member American Society of Landscape Architects Asst. Prof. Landscape Engineering N. Y. State College of Forestry FEBRUARY, 1916 Introductory Statement to Report Submitted by Professor Laurie D, Cox of The New York State College of Forestry at Syracuse University to Hon. Cabot Ward, Park Com- missioner of New York City By HUGH P. BAKER The ^ew York State College of Forestry at Syracuse University, which, was established by legislative action in 1911, is obligated in its charter to carry on educational work in Forestry wherever that may be needed in the State equally with the training of young men at Syracuse. It therefore developed, early in 1912, its Extension Service in Forestry for the giving of illustrated lectures and demon- strations in forestry. As a part of the Extension Service it began in 1912 studies and practical demonstrations which would assist rural communities and cities in the beautifica- tion of highways, country roads, streets, parks and public grounds generally. This work was done both for the pur- pose of making the results of general educational value in the State and mth the idea of using the trees about the homes of the people and along roadways and highways and in parks as the means of creating a better understanding by the people of the actual forestry needs of the State. When early in 1914 the Tree Planting Association of iN'ew York City, of which Dr. Stephen Smith is president, asked the College what it could do in cooperating with the Associa- tion to find out the condition of trees and the extent and nature of tree planting in I^ew York City and through this knowledge evolve a proper system of tree planting, the Col- lege stated at once that it would be glad to lend one of its landscape engineers during an entire summer season. The Tree Planting Association accepted the suggestion of the College and Professor Henry P. Francis, in charge of the 12 College of Foreslry Landscape Extension Service of the College, was assigned and worked during- the summer of 1914 npon a series of in- vestigations of typical streets to show just what the condi- tion of street trees was at that time with the idea that a knowledge of these conditions would lead people to appre- ciate very forcefully the necessity for more and better trees in ISTew York City. Soon after the close of the season a bul- letin was prepared by Professor Francis which was issued as Series XV, Xo. Ic, by The J^ew York State College of For- estry and entitled '' Report on the Street Trees of the City of I^ew York." Copy of this report may be had upon appli- cation to the College. In the spring of 1915, the President of the Park Board of J^ew York City, Hon. Cabot Ward, who had followed with interest the investigations of Professor Francis, requested the State College of Forestry at Syracuse to detail one of its men for another season with the idea that the investi- gations of 1914 could be applied to somewhat more definite problems of caring for street trees and evolving a suggestive system of street j^lanting and culture for the entire city. Professor Francis having l)een assigned In- the College to spend the season with the Massachusetts Forestry Asso- ciation in carrying out field work on the 300-mile highway from Boston to the JSTew York line and back through Cam- bridge to Boston, Professor Laurie D. C^ox, a graduate land- scape architect, was assigned for the work under Mr. Cabot Ward. At the close of the summer of administrative and investi- gative work in the park department. Professor Cox submit- ted the following report which received from the President of the Park Board highly com]ilimentary notice. As the Col- lege felt that it would be desirable to publish the report by Professor Cox that it might serve as an illustration of a scheme of tree planting for American cities, Mr. Cabot Ward very gladly released the report for publication and distribu- tion bv the College. The College of Forestry feels that the work of Professor Frfincis iind Pi-ofessor Cox in Xew York Citv is in line with .1 Sfrcrf Tree Si/.slcut for Xcir Yorl- Cifii l-'< its obligation to he of service to the people of the State. The College has under way investigations of several other com- innnities of the State in some of which the tree survey is heing done by the school children of the community. Out of this general educational work hy the College and hy other institutions and agencies, there is developing a widespread interest and knowledge of proper methods of planting and ])rotection of street and ])ark trees and it should all lead to making Xew York State a better place in which to live. iJlttUr at Slrattsmittal To Honorable Cabot Ward, Park Commissioner, Borouf/lis of Manhattan and Richmond : SiK. — I submit herewith the accompanying report con- cerning the street tree situation in Manhattan. This re- port embodies the results of my summer's investigation concerning the possibilities for successful tree growth on the streets of your borough. It has been my aim to approach the problem in a somewhat new way, rather as a phase of city planning than as a mere horticultural problem in street tree growth. The attempt has been made to present thus a scheme for street tree con- trol which may be appropriate in its ambition to the dignity of America's foremost city. The success of my summer's work has been largely due to the generous cooperation of all the members of your depart- ment organization. They have placed at my disposal their knowledge of and experience with local conditions, without which it would have been very difficult to have accomplished much in the brief period of time at my disposal. I wish especially to acknowledge the valuable assistance rendered me by your Secretary, Mr. Volentine, and the land- scape architect of the Department, Mr. Pilat, and his assist- ant, Mr. Gatringer. I was also much aided in my study of the problem of tree planting zones by having access to the maps and records of the City Plan Commission through the courtesy of Mr. George B. Ford and his assistants of the City Planning Bureau. Respectfully submitted, Latrie Davidson Cox, Syracuse. ^. Y. Landscape Architect. (14) I. INTEODUCTION. II. THE STREET TREE PROBLEM IN MANHATTAN. III. THE STREET TREE SYSTEM. What streets to plant. IV. PLANTING TYPES. Design in street tree planting. V. SPACING AND ARRANGEMENT. Standardized planting plans for typical ^Manhattan blocks. VI. WHAT TREES TO PLANT. A description of the species best adapted for Manhattan streets. VII. HOW TO PLANT. A detailed consideration of growing conditions and planting methods. VIII. THE COST OF PLANTING. Standardized planting specifications and their estimated cost. IX. ORGANIZATION AND BUDGET. A street tree bureau and the estimated cost of its operation. X. THE STREET TREE CENSUS. Its purpose and value. XI. STREET TREE PLANTING IN RICHMOND. (15; Tliotograph by L D. Cox. A Manhattan Residence Street. Showing that it is possible to secure splendid tree planting even on the narrower residential streets of Manhattan. The trees are young Norway Maples. This picture illustrates that form of the normal type of planting design in which the trees " frame-in the vista " — here very valuable. If these trees are allowed to grow until they reach the " overarching " form^he beauty of the street will be much lessened. L ilnlroburtton It will not be considered necessary in this report to discuss the many ways in which trees on city streets att'ect the health, the beauty and even the real estate values of the community. Everyone has heard of these things, everyone believes them and nearly everyone is willing to pay his share in securing them. To the city dweller the street trees are peculiarly precious. Foremost among the features which surround his home or place of business they make real to him the changing seasons and serve to remind him of the open country which lies be- yond the confines of his masonry and asphalt existence. It is not surprising therefore the amount of interest which problems in connection with street tree growth have awak- ened during recent years not only in 'New York l)ut in many cities, for there are few questions of municipal life upon which the average citizen is more unanimous in his opinion than in the desirability of shade trees on the streets of his city. In spite of this interest, however, and the popular support of all movements in behalf of street trees the progress which has been made in the art and practice of growing trees upon the streets of our larger American cities has been largely neg- ative. This is mainly because the street tree problem on ac- count of its apparent simplicity has not received the amount of serious attention from experts which it has demanded. Our city planners and landscape architects have for the most part been engrossed with more adventurous problems and our city foresters save in a few cases have given their attention to the simpler horticultural and entomological prob- lems of plantino' and care, rather than the more important features of design, engineering nnd ndministrntion. a-) 18 College of Forestry In any sizable city successful street tree growtli is a diffi- cult matter, and one demanding the expenditure of money and the advice of experts. In New York the gi'owing of street trees is much more difficult and more costly than in most cities and so far it has been correspondingly less suc- cessful. To secure again on the Island of Manhattan the tree shaded thoroughfares once among the city's most cherished possessions and now so rapidly passing away, is still possible. To accomplish this but three things are necessary: money, knowledge and a definite and comprehensive scheme or pro- gram. The first should be secured without difficulty, the second is made possible by the first, and this rather brief and far from perfect report will endeavor to suggest the third. IL ®I|p Btmt (Em froblem tn illattl|atta« Any hasty consideration of the question of growing street trees in New York City, or in that most typical portion of it, the Borough of Manhattan, will develop one of two opin- ions. Either it will be deemed a simple problem such as is being solved in nearly every town or city of the land or it will be declared a matter utterly absurd - — a problem im- possible of solution. Like the results of most hasty considerations, neither of these opinions is correct. Successful tree growth on Man- mattan streets is something considerably more than a ques- tion of ordinary planting and care. Again it is neither im- possible nor impracticable to secure on many streets a satis- factory growth of shade trees. It is true, however, that to secure any considerable number of permanent shade trees on the streets of Manliattan is a problem which is without question one of the most difficult ones yet approached by city foresters or park authorities in this country. In addition to the ordinary difficulties which beset tree growth under city conditions, such as pavements which shut out water and air from the roots ; trunk injury due to heavy traffic; weakened vigor to resist insects and disease, due to gas-poisoned soil and smoke and dust-burdened air; we have in Manhattan many additional hazards to overcome. Thus above ground, the very general presence of high buildings upon comparatively narrow streets causes a very serious lack of sunshine, light and air and produces a prevalence of tear- ing, swirling winds. Below the surface we have even more abnonnal conditions in the extensive use of the area beneath the street for subways, sewers, conduits and vaults. These things are true not only of the business streets but of the res- idential streets as well. The grass parking strips between sidewalk and curb which are present on the majority of the (19) 20 CoJU'ijc of Forest rij residence streets iu other cities are an extreme rarity in Man- hattan. An open area of lawn or yard between the building and the sidewalk is still rarer and practically does not exist throughout 95 per cent, of the borough. In fact the growing conditions on the average residence street in Manhattan are no better than, and often not as good as those of the business street in the ordinary American city. As a result of all these factors the problem of growing trees on the majority of Manhattan streets becomes a totally artificial one. The entire soil to contain the roots, together with all food, air and water for the tree, must be supplied artificially, much as they are supplied to house plants or to trees grown in conservatories. That is, the tree must be grown in a tree pit of prepared soil much as a plant is grown in a flower pot. In some cases this pit must be provided with concrete walls and underdrainage, while very com- monly iron gratings or some form of protecting cover must be installed over the surface of the pit. The entire problem of selecting the tree, its planting, pruning and care must thus be radically different from those of ordinary street tree practice, and likewise the cost must be considerably larger than that for planting and main- tenance in the average city or town. In certain boroughs of New York City it has been estimated that a tree may be suc- cessfully planted and cared for until established for eight dollars, whereas a sidewalk grating alone on a Manhattan street will cost several times this sum. In the City of Xew- ark a tree can be planted and established for approximately five dollars, while in Manhattan it will cost nearly this amount to cut and remove the ]iavement above the pit in wliich the tree is to be planted. If any plan or program for street tree planting in Man- hattan is to be made it is very evident that a careful study must be given to determine the following facts : (1) On what streets shall trees be planted? (The high cost as above explained makes it impracticable to attempt to plant the entire borough, and likewise the present and future A Street Tree Sijslem for Xeir York City 21 ll^;e and condition of niaiiv streets makes successful planting upon them impracticable if not impossible.) (2) WItat l-'uid, li/jie and size of trees can be used iritli assurance of success under the peculiar, adverse conditions wliicli prevail? (3) W'liat will it cost to do the ivorh o)i the different classes of streets/ (Since the conditions of the streets differ so widely, no uniform system of planting can be used which will be most elficient and economical in all cases. Ditferent types of planting must be determined upon for the ditferent conditions which are to be met.) (4) Wliat forin of organization ivill he necessary for se- curing and maintaining satisfactory street tree growth ac- cording to these determined facts? (5) What is a reasonable budget for the organization and program thus determined upon? We will attempt to consider each of these points in order. Photograph by L. D. Cox. The Pin Oak Used as a Small Formal Street Tree for Poor Growing Conditions. A view of north Broadway showing the existing planting of a rather inter- esting type; a double row of Pin Oaks in a central parking. If these trees are to be maintained successfully they should be kept as at present of small size and formal shape since the few feet of soil above the subway roof will not per- mit a root system sufficient for large trees. To permit a greater use of the central parkings they could be kept in alternate blocks of grass and gravel, the gravel blocks to be provided with concrete seats. The existing planting should be extended south to 135th Street. A lighter guard would be more attractive and give ample protection. See Chapter IV for other ■plantiiig types. III. A ^'Irrd Q^m BxiBUm Mljat BtrtttB to Plant In any serious consideration of street tree planting in Manhattan it is evident that not all streets are equally avail- able or advisable for this purpose. ITarrow^ sidewalks, exces- sive congestion, commercial traffic, high buildings, under- ground construction, all of these together or in various com- binations eliminate many streets from the list of those prac- ticable or possible for satisfactory tree growth. On account of this fact it may appear perhaps that any tree growth, even if it is secured, must be scattered and hap- hazard, and that no continuity can be had. Again, owing to the high cost of planting under the existing conditions, and with the rapid deterioration of the existing trees, the task of securing permanent street tree planting in Manhat- tan may indeed seem hopeless in its immensity. It would certainly appear that if any worth-while results are to be obtained we must have a plan or program towards which to work, that is, an organized system or selection of streets upon which to concentrate our efforts. To select these streets and then coordinate them into an organic scheme of city decoration has suggested to the writer the idea of a street tree system, and what is more natural than to unite this system in some way with the city park areas which, with the street trees, supply the horticultural decoration of the city. In this way the idea of a street tree system as a scheme of inter-park connections had its origin. One of the important city planning features in most mod- ern American cities is the park system, and there are few proo;ressive cities of today which do not have such a system under construction or cherish ambitious plans for such a con- summation. In fact this scheme of organizing the various park units into a correlated whole and connecting them by (23) 24 College of ForesU-y parkways and boulevards into a comprehensive system lias been termed " the one great contribution of America to the modern art of city planning." New York City, although the pioneer among American cities in the creation of public parks and the possessor of some of the most magnilicent individual park areas in the land, alone among the great cities of America possesses neither a park system nor a definite plan or program for the creation of such a system. In the other boroughs of the city, save Manhattan, the opportunity exists for working out a park system with the usual park connections and doubtless all of these bor- oughs will some day possess, in greater or less degree, such systems. In Manhattan, however, due to the intensive use of all available real estate, a park system by means of these ordinary forms of park connections would appear to he prac- tically impossible. If a system of connecting ways is to be secured in Manhattan at any reasonable outlay, we must make use in some form of the existing streets. With this thought in mind in approaching the street tree problem, the writer was impressed with the feasibility of securing a system of park connections in Manhattan by means of a comprehensive and organized system of tree planting on carefully selected streets. By selecting streets which will permit of successful tree growth and by secur- ing in our planting design a reasonable degree of interest and individuality, a park system unique among American cities may be secured. Such a scheme of street planting- would not only coordinate the existing scattered park areas of the liorough into a comprehensive system, but would also impart that peculiar or individual character and beauty which is necessary if Manhattan, the heart of 'New York City, is to take its place, as its importance in all other lines justify, among the beautiful cities of the world. A careful study has been made of every street in ]\ranhat- tan leading to or from the various park areas. It has been found possible iu the case of practically all of the more im- portant parks to select streets suitable for inter-park con- A Street Tree System for Neio Yorl- City 25 nections upon which successful tree growth of one form or another may be secured. These streets are suggested for our proposed " street tree system," and are shown upon the ac- companying map.* By concentrating our efforts upon these streets it will be possible, with a reasonable annual expendi- ture, to secure a condition of tree planting in Manhattan which will give to the city the appearance and charm of a tree-shaded city. In selecting the streets to be used, careful consideration was given not only to the existing conditions of the streets in question, but also to the future development of them. This latter was largely determined by the proposed scheme of dis- tricting being worked out by the City Planning Commission. The streets of our proposed street tree system are confined almost entirely to those streets which lie in the districts limited to residential or restricted business (retail stores, offices, etc.) and residential purposes. Several streets which it would be very desirable to include in our system, and whose present condition would permit of tree growth have not been so included because they lie within the proposed unrestricted districts (factories, warehouses, etc.), where the ultimate development would probably ren- der tree growth either impossible or at least unsuccessful. These few streets are indicated separately upon our map, and if by any chance the proposed districts could be slightly changed so as to exclude these streets from the unrestricted districts they should be added to the system. There are of course other streets not included in our sys- tem of inter-park connections, but upon which trees may be grown successfully. These are streets which will lie in the restricted residential districts. They, too, are indicated upon the accompanying map.* The program should be to encour- age tree planting by private o^^mers upon these streets ac- cording to the block unit discussed in Chapter V, and public planting should be carried out upon these streets after the main system has been completed. * See large map of The Street Tree System. A y U.' -1 imini SIDEWALK 30' — -F TROLLEY ROADWAY 4D' IDO' r^LJ-L SIDEWALK — 30' - 14 ..K PARK Central Park West EXISTING TREE PLANTING SEE 5ECTI0ri SHOWING PROPOSED CHANGE IN STREET DESIGN L O.C-L.A Planting of the " Normal " Type in the Unbalanced Form. A typical section indicating the existing condition of this street. It is proposed to widen the roadway to relieve traffic congestion; see sketch below. If the present design is retained, a third row of trees grown beneath gratings could be located on the sidewalk to the west. The present trees cannot be counted upon for long and will soon have to be replaced. J .J" c. '■;> J i S v. GRAVEL PAKKIHfj AREAS IOA!0 - irrn Ju\ -T ti_ SIDEWALK 25 — Ti — r TRULLLr RQADWAr 50' — — JQO' " ilDEWALK -15 Central Park West SUGGESTED NEW TREE PLANTING SCHEME FDR USE IF PROPOSED CHANGES IN CAR TRACKS AND SIDEWALKS ARE CARklEU OUT L D.C Planting of the "Normal" Type (Form BorC). Planting of the normal type would be appropriate for this street if the con- templated change in the street design is carried out. The Oriental Plane or Linden could be used, and grown either in fenced (grass or gravel) parking areas or in tree pits with grating or brick-paved surface. IV. Planting QlypfB IpHtgu in #trrpt ©rrr Planting In any prog-ram or system of street planting it is unwise to adopt any single type and attempt to repeat it on all streets. ]^ot only do variations in conditions make sucli a scheme unscientific, but all interest and variety in the sys- tem is lost, and in spite of the great beauty of individual streets the general effect will become somewhat monotonous." This is especially true if we seek to form a unified and com- prehensive system, to serve as inter-park connections, such as we have suggested. It is of course impossible to secure a different type of planting for each particular street, yet in the more impor- tant cases this can be done or at least a single type can be so varied by using different species of trees as to give a distinct character to each of the more important individual streets and avenues. A, few of the various types of planting design which are possible and appropriate in Manhattan are illus- trated by the accompanying sketches. These sketches in the form of street sections show these suggested types of planting as recommended for some of the more important thorough- fares of our proposed system. While the forms of planting which it is possible to secure permit of great variation, there are several readily distin- guished types which are particularly appropriate for Man- hattan streets. I. The Normal Type. The simplest form of street tree planting is that in which we have a single or double row of trees on one or both side- * Several American cities with excellent street tree planting suffer from monotony due to uniformity of planting design and the use of the same species of tree on the majority of the thoroughfares. (27) PAVED SIDEWALh WITH SRAVEL PARKINuS ON EITHER SIDE ROADWAY PAVED SIDEWALK JO Fifth Avenue. Facing Central Park FROM SgT-i' SI TO IIOTMST. LOCI A Planting of the " Normal " Type in the Unbalanced Form. A typical section illustrating the existing tree planting in this street. The present trees, American Elms, cannot be counted upon for long, as con- ditions are unfavorable for their growth and they are fast deteriorating. They could be replaced by Oriental Planes or Lindens. In replacing, one of several types of planting may be had: the present form with a double row of trees on one side or either of the two forms illustrated in the following sketches. r" e l\ n ORAVEL PARKINCiS PARK Jl I ID WALK - 3D' ROADWAY 40' JrX. SIDEWALK 30' IDO Fifth Avenue Facino Central Park SUGGESTED TREATMENT B, SEE OPTIONAL TREATMENT A L.O C- LA. Planting of the '' Normal " Type with Double Row on One Side. A suggested type for new tree planting on Fifth Avenue facing Central Park. This provides for three rows of trees in continuous gravel parkings. In planting the double row on the west it would be well to alternate the spacing in the two rows with the trees at 50-feet intervals in each row. >^ ^ 6RASS PARKm& AREAS FENCED SIZE I5X4D'-|0'APART SIDEWALK — 30' ROADWAY — +0' 100' — SIDEWALK — 30' Fifth Avenue Facincj Central Park SUGGESTED TREATMENT A. SEE OPTIONAL TREATMENT B. Planting of the Normal Type (Form B). An optional type of planting for Fifth Avenue facing Central Park; normal type planting. This scheme of planting provides for the trees being grown in large tree pits or parking areas, to be kept in grass and fenced. The tree recommended for this street is either the Oriental Plane or the Linden. 80 Colleparttt0 anti Arrmtg^mntt ^taubarbi^fli planting Plana for ©mitral Manliattau iSlnrka So much lias been sttid and written about the evils of plant- ing street trees too closely that it may seem almost unneces- sary to mention it again. There is nothing more difficult to secure in street planting than correct spacing and arrange- ment and this is especially true if the wishes or opinions of the abutting property owners are considered. The chief rea- son for this is that young trees are so small at the time of planting that when spaced as is commonly done from 20 to oO feet apart they give no idea of the ultimate crowding which will occur when the trees reach maturity. In addition to the injury to the appearance of the street as well as to the trees themselves when planted so thickly that nomial development is prohibited when the trees mature, such planting becomes a serious menace to health, as it cuts off very largely from the lower stories of the buildings a proper supply of sunlight and air. In Manhattan where the buildings present a continuous facade on practically all streets this question of air and sunlight is of special impor- tance, and crowded planting is especially unwise. Besides these considerations of appearance and health the question of cost is also to be noted. With the high cost of planting and maintaining trees under Manhattan conditions the greatest efficiency will be secured by the widest spacing which it is possible to have, and still secure a satisfactory appearance. To secure such efficiency a uniform or standard- ized spacing is of course necessary. The beauty of any formal type of street tree planting de- pends very largely upon regularity in the size, kind and arrangement of the trees, all of which are impossible unless a systematic scheme of planting is followed. The planting of trees by individual property owners, (39) 40 College of Forestry so often done in other cities and much advocated in jSTew York, always produces a condition where the trees are of varying size, age and kind, spaced at irreg-ular and un- satisfactory intervals. The street trees form the most im- portant and often the only esthetic element in street design, and it is difficult to see any reason for releasing them from the oversight of the city which controls and standardizes the rest of the street design. In some cities the tree planting is carried out as a part of the street improvement and this is fortunately the growing tendency. In fact it is no more reasonable to allow the property owner to show his individual preference regarding the kind or arrangement of street trees in front of his property than it is to allow him a similar priv- ilege in the construction of his sidewalk or pavement. The smallest unit area of a street that should be planted at one time in Manhattan is a block on the east and west streets, and two or more blocks on the avenues running north and south. The trees for this unit should be of uniform size and kind, and regularly spaced according to the size of the block as regai'ds arrangement. It is of course much better to plant an entire street at once, but units of the size men- tioned will permit of a reasonable degree of uniformity in the street planting in the borough. The accompanying typical planting plans have been made to illustrate a satisfactory spacing arrangement for Manhat- tan streets. These plans show a minimum spacing distance of 50 feet, wliich will be found neither too small for the largest trees, such as the Planes, nor too great for the smaller formally pruned-trees, such as the Poplar and Gingko. This plan will give eight trees to the block on the avenues run- ning north and south where the blocks average about 200 feet, and from 24 to 32 trees to the block on the east and west streets according as the blocks vary from 600 to 800 feet. The same standard of spacing should be used on any streets which do not divide themselves regularly into blocks. While it would be possible in some cases to plant the trees at smaller intervals, a very satisfactory appearance will be secured at 50 feet intervals. In no cases will there be serious crowding, < 1 . 25 - 50 • so' - 1 so' - •! so' so' so' ;-25'. l__ 43 P 1 1 a a a n □ a □ ...JtL_ 1 1 '+' lU >< Y\f. 23" ST. h lU h n a Lj ri o □ Suggested Plan Showing Typical Planting Arrangement Oe East And West Streets. h Z 4( so Y of sa pc ai th re ca fo re in il( at St ai ai bl tc ti tl tc ta oJ la fc P n f( St T w it ir 51 A Street Tree Sy stein for New York City 41 and the number of trees will be reduced to a minimum, a very desirable feature in consideration of the higb cost of planting and maintenance in this city. It is highly desirable to keep the corner trees from 40 to 50 feet back from the sidewalk curb at the street intersec- tions so as to permit an auto-bus to load and discharge pas- sengers at the street corners. The use of these conveyances is already an important feature of street transportation in Manhattan and the indications point to a still further ex- tension of this service in the future. VL Uliat ^utB to fimt A irHrnptinn at tl|r HarirttPH IpHt Abaptrb for Hlant|attan BtttttB Having' selected the streets upon which tree planting may be done with a fair prospect of success, the kind of tree and the way to plant it must next be determined. While the failure and death of trees upon Manhattan streets is very often due to unsuitable growing conditions which may be remedied by proper attention and care, there are certain trees which even under the best conditions obtainable are foredoomed to failure and should not be used. The number of trees suitable for street use in any city is small, and those which can be used in Manhattan with any reasonable expec- tation of success is still smaller. Under the most favorable conditions which exist in ^ew York, such as on parkways or on streets and avenues having broad parkings, there is a fair range of choice; but in the main, the most satisfactory re- sults will be obtained by restricting our list of trees to six or seven species. After having considered carefully the city's past expe- rience with tree growi:h in its streets and parks, the peculiar factors which enter into local conditions, and the experience of other cities, the following list has been prepared. This list comprises only those trees which can he grown with a reasonable assurance of success on the streets and avenues of Manhattan. This list is arranged in order of quality considered in re- lation to the ability to succeed under the local adverse con- ditions : (1) Platanus oeiextalts (The Oriental or London rinne) : aho "known as BiUton Ball or Sycamore. This tree is well known and already much used in this city. Tt is ouo of the hardiest and most ndii])t:i1)lp of trees for use Photograph by L. D. Cox. The Gingko as a Street Tree. An example of the remarkable hardihood of this tree under adverse city con- ditions. Although the tree is growing in an opening in the pavement less than two feet in diameter, and with a trunk which has been^more thanj'half girdled by injury for many years the tree appears in perfect health. Probably no other tree except the Ailanthus would have survived under similar'^conditions. A Street Tree System for New York City 45 on city streets and possesses much beauty, especially in old age. It has very few enemies, is little subject to disease and is a rapid grower and long-lived. It normally makes a large tree, so is not adapted for use in narrow streets unless kept back by severe pruning. It is well adapted for such prun- ing, and is uninjured by it. This tree is to be used wherever a large tree is desired as on wide streets and avenues, or can be used as noted as a formally pruned, medium-sized tree for narrow streets. (2) GiNGKO BiLOBA {The Maidenhair Tree). This tree is extremely hardy and succeeds in very poor soil, and is very free from insects and disease as well as being a tree of considerable beauty. Its chief fault is its sIoav rate of growth, but for street use where a small-sized tree is re- quired this defect is not serious. It is readily kept either round-headed or pyramidal in form by pruning. This tree would be especially valuable for use in Manhattan on narrow streets or where a formally pruned tree is required. It is doubtful if any tree on our list will succeed so well under ad- verse conditions as the Gingko. (3) TiLiA VULGARIS (The European Linden)* This is the tree so much used as a street tree in European cities. It is a beautiful tree in both form and foliage and its bloom is delightful in fragrance. The tree is thoroughly hardy, succeeds under the adverse conditions of a city street and is a rapid grower, yet takes kindly to severe pruning. The Linden has received a bad name in l^ew York be- cause many of the varieties which have been used lose their foliage in the warm weather of July and August due to the attacks of the red spider. If the true Tilia vidr/aris is used this trouble will usually not be experienced. Great care should be exercised in securing the true species as nursery- men often offer under the name vulgaris another species * The author is indebted to the article by F. L. OhTisted and H. J. Koehler in the July number of "Landscape Architecture" for the true nomenclature of the lindens as here used. Photograph by L. D. Cox. The Linden as a Street Tree. An example from New Haven of a Silver Linden ( Tilia iomentosa) planted in a small tree pit beneath a sidewalk grating on a paved street. The grating and guard are similar^to those recommended in I'lanting Specification No. 3. Photograph by L. D. Cox. Existing Planting on West 86th Street. The Norway Maple as a Street Tree. The trees are too crowded and about 50 per cent of them should be removed. A lighter guard, with the existing fences around the parking areas, would give ample protection and would be more economical and better looking. A square guard is difRcult to keep in good appearance since a slight variation in alignment along the tree rows is very apparent. The round guard of Speci- fication No. 4 would be better if a heavy guard must be used. Pliotograph by L. D Cox. The Pin Oak as a Street Tree. Pin Oaks on a Manhattan street planted in tree pits with gravel surface similar to the requirements of Planting Specification No. 2. The surface of the tree pit should be kept lower than the sidewalk pavement in order to catch any available water. The soil should also be frequently cultivated as it is rapidly compacted by traffic. If these trees are not permitted to become too large, a very successful growth may^be maintained. A Street Tree System for New York City 49 (Tilia platyphyllos) the large-leaved European Linden which is badly affected by the red spider and is a generally inferior tree in many ways. There are two other lindens, probably equally as good for street use as Tilia vulgaris. These are Tilia cordata, the small-leaved European Linden and Tilia tomentosa, the Silver Linden. These have not been used so long as street trees in America and so less is known about them. (4) Acer platanoides {The Norway Maple). This is the best Maple which can be grown successfully on city streets. There are several horticultural varieties of this tree on the market which may prove superior to the type when better known. The varieties differ from the type prin- cipally in form. Two of the best are var glohosum which is very round and formal and var columnare which is tall and columnar. The type tree forms a round-headed, attrac- tive appearing tree so well known that a detailed descrip- tion is not necessary. While subject to a number of in- sect pests the tree can be kept in good health with reasonable care. The N^orway Maple stands street conditions very well, but it is less hardy than the Plane and Gingko, and should only be used where soil and moisture conditions are fairly good. It is not as well adapted for use beneath gratings as the Linden, Plane or Gingko. The jSTorway Maple is to be recommended for use on residence streets where fair-sized tree pits or parking areas are available. The photo on page 16 shows the beauty of a street planted to Xorway Maples when the trees are w^ell grown. 5. QuEKCus PALUSTEis {Tlic Pin Oak). While less hardy than the Plane ;.::d Gingko, the Pin Oak will make a splendid growth in a eery restricted area if soil conditions are reasonably good. Being a slow grower it is very easy to keep it of small size by pruning and in this way the top may be kept in balance with the root growth where the space available for the roots is limited. An example of this is seen in the present successful planting on T^orth Broad- Photograph by L. D. Cox. The Formally Pruned Poplar as a Street Tree. This picture indicates the very pleasing effect which may be secured with this'tree on a bu.sy street if the trees are kept low and of formal shape by severe pruning. These trees are on lower FifthjAvenue, and form one of the most successful bits of tree planting in New York. A Street Tree Systcia for New York City 51 way where the trees are growing in a few feet of soil above the subway roof. This tree has few enemies, and can easily be kept in fine foliage. It is adapted for use as a normal sized tree in deep soil as well as for pruning to a limited size where the soil is shallow. The Pin Oak is no more hardy than the Red Oak, but on account of its slower growth is more adaptable to adverse street conditions. (). PopuLus DELToiDEs {vav. Carolhiiensis) . {The Caro- lina Poplar) . The Carolina Poplar is generally held in bad repute as a street tree because of the tendency of its roots to clog sewers and water pipes and because the brittle nature of its wood makes it liable to injury in storms. However, if the tree is kept pruned to a small size and formal shape, both these objections are largely overcome, and its luxuriant green foliage, even under the most adverse conditions, make it very valuable for certain locations. It is well adapted for use when pruned in this manner on congested business streets grown in a restricted tree pit beneath a grating. Being a rapid grower and easily moved when of fair size it would be possible with this tree to maintain uniform tree lines of formally pruned trees on streets where few other trees could be made to succeed.* 7. AiLANTHUS GLAisDULosA {The Tree of Heaven). The Ailanthus is even more hardy than the Plane, the Gingko or the Poplar and requires a minimum of soil and water to succeed. This tree will grow luxuriantly where no other tree could exist, and this is its chief value in any list of street trees. In appearance it is fair, the foliage be- ing rather coarse and tropical in effect, but always of a luxuriant green. The tree tends to grow straggly, and has a rather unsightly appearance in the winter. The Ailanthus * The Shade Tree Commission of Newark has used the Poplar treated in this way with considerable success. There exists on lower Fifth avenue several trees thus pruned which are among the most effective and successful street trees to be found in New York. Photofiraph by L. D. Cox. The Ailanthus as a Street Tree. An aged Ailanthus on lower Fifth Avenue bearing a healthy crown of foliage under conditions in which most trees would perish. The tree is growing in an opening in the pavement about 3x4 feet and the trunk is nearly girdled by bark injuries. .1 ^'stino-' $20.00 the estimate becomes ^. $35 00 a tree (c) >SlpEVVAl_K PA-vEViE. C.I GKATimGi CSTYLt New YOR.B I e> - 6 » B| iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimB ~T Detail Sketch Street. Tree Peamting Specification n-s. GRATING STYLE "New York:': L. D. Cox, L. A. The details of this planting specification are given on page 69. The estimated cost is $30.00 per tree. Detail Sketch. Street Tree Planting Specieication N24. Gratimg Style "Knickerbocker: L. D. Cox, L A. The details of this planting specification are given on page 72. The estimated cost is $40.00 per tree. 9, College of Forestry IV. SxjfEET Teee Planting Specification ]^o. 4. (a) Cutting Pavement: The sidewalk pavement over the area of the tree pit shall be removed so as to provide an opening 4^x6' 7". The outside or street edge of this opening shall be one foot from the outside edge of the sidewalk curb. The margin of the opening shall be provided with a half-inch ledge to receive the grating in such a way that the grating shall lie flush wath the sidewalk. (&) Grating: A cast iron grating 4' x 6' 6" designated as style " Knick- erbocker •""' shall be provided. This grating is shown on the accompanying drawing of Planting Specification No. 4. (c) The detail requirements regarding suh-soiling, ferti- lizer, tree, guard and stal-e shall be as stated in Planting- Specification j^o. 1. Estimate : Excavating and sub-soiling $6 00 Cutting and trimming pavement 3 00 Grating 20 00 Guard 7 00 Tree delivered 1 50 Stake 50 Planting and miscellaneous labor 1 00 Cultivation and replacements until tree is established 1 00 $40 00 per tree V. Street Tree Planting Specification ISTo. 5. This is the type of specification already in use by the Park Department, detailed specifications and drawings of which are on file in the ofiice of the landscape architect of the department. The estimated cost of this type of planting is from $50 to $60 per tree, according to number of trees planted at one time. (See estimate in ofiice of Landscape Architect of Park Department.) Detail Sketch Street Tree Planting. Specifjcation N5 5. GRATING St YL.E "Manhattan L. D. Cox, L. A. This planting specification is described on page 72. The estimated cost is $50.00-S60.00 per tree. IX. (ill|p (irgatti^atton txnh Mxxh^H A i'trppt ®rrr lurrait au& tljr italimatrft (Enat nf Jta OPprratiim If we examine the details of street tree control in various American cities we find that there are in general use three quite difi"erent forms of street tree administration. I. That in which the authority over street trees is placed in the hands of an independent board or comm.ission. II. That in which this authority is exercised by a Bureau of the Park Department. ill. That in which this authority is exercised by some other bureau such as the Street Department or the Board of Public Works. The second plan is without doubt the best, and the one in most common use. In the case of New York City this form of administration is provided for hx charter, and the authority over street tree maintenance and planting in each borough is placed in the hands of the Borough Park Department. In approaching the problem in ^lanhattan therefore it is only necessary to perfect an arboricultural organization already possible or existing in the Park Department, and to determine the annual revenue which will be necessary for the maintenance of such an organization. With the idea of arriving at an accurate estimate as to the probable cost of adequate street tree control in Manhattan, an investigation has been made of the cost of similar work in a number of American cities where efficient departments of city forestry are maintained. It is of course as difficult as in the case of park operation, to standardize exactly such a peculiar type of public service as street tree control. How- ever, if the cost figures of various cities are interpreted with (74) .4 Street Tree System for New Yorh City 75 the knowledge of the differing local conditions some degree of basic comparison may be made. In estimating the cost of street tree control in Manhattan it is necessary to note first the cost for the trees which are to be maintained, both existing and proposed, and second the cost of the new planting. The system of street tree planting which is outlined on the map accompanying this report pro- vides for approximately eighty-five miles of planted streets which would give, at the rate of 200 trees to the mile (the number secured by following the spacing arrangement of our proposed block planting plans), approximately 17,000 trees, There is perhaps a street mileage half as great which is not included in the system, but upon which street trees may be grown successfully if desired (i. e., streets purely residential in character, lying in the proposed restricted residential districts). Assuming 8,000 trees to be the number required for such streets we get a total of 25,000 trees as the number of street trees which may be ultimately secured in the Borough of Manhattan. The street tree census, which was completed by the writer as far north as 110th Street, recorded 5,400 trees. From a careful examination of the balance of the Borough, it would seem that a reasonable estimate would place the number of street trees south of 110th Street at about one- third of the entire number in the city, so that an estimate of 15,000 is a fairly accurate one as to the number of exist- ing trees upon Manhattan streets. Fully two-thirds of these existing trees are, however, in a very unsatisfactory condi- tion, and probably not more than 5,000 can be considered a part of our permanent planting. Our problem thus becomes the preservation of the 5,000 existing trees which are of pennanent value, and the re- placement of the 10,000 inferior or deteriorating trees, together with the planting of an additional 10,000 new trees on streets not now planted. Our maintenance operations will therefore begin with the total of 15,000 trees which, allowing for the removal of dead and dying specimens, may be considered to be increased each vear bv one-half the 76 College of Forestry number of the trees aunually planted assuming au annual planting- of 1,000 trees, until the 10,000 inferior trees are replaced, and the annual increase is only sufficient to equal replacements. The number of new trees which shall be planted is of course only limited by the funds available, and, if a really progressive policy is to be adopted, should not be less than 1,000 trees, or five miles of our proposed system, until the 10,000 additional new trees are secured. Based on these figures, a tree planting program for a five- year period from date would give an annual maintenance and planting problem somewhat as follows: First year: Maintenance of 15.000 trees. Xew planting of l,000\rees. Second year: Maintenance of 15,500 trees. Xew plant- ing of 1,000 trees. Third year: Maintenance of 16,000 trees. Xew planting of 1,000 trees. Fourth year: Maintenance of 16,500 trees. Xew plant- ing of 1,000 trees. Fifth year: Maintenance of 17,000 trees. Xew planting of 1,000' trees. It is evident then that if we can learn the average ex- pense per tree for annual maintenance, and also the cost of our new planting, we can establish very accurately the an- nual budget which will be necessary for our proposed Bureau of City Forestry, and hence the size and scope of the re- quired organization. Maintetmnce : As has been said above, it is very difficult to standardize the cost of street tree maintenance. The city of Paris, world-famous for the beauty of its street trees, finds it neces- sary to spend $1.25 per tree for annual maintenance. We have no American city with similar conditions maintaining its trees at the same degree of excellence, and, in those Amer- ican cities where first-class street tree maintenance is secured. .1 street Tree Sijstein for Neiv Yorh City 77 the conditions do not reseniLle those in Manhattan as much as the Paris conditions do. The city of !N"ewark, IST. J., spends fifty cents per tree per year for its street tree maintenance. The Xewark trees are extremely well maintained, bnt the majority of their trees are grown in grass parkings under the best conditions, and also the number of old "trees is small, so that the cost of re- movals is at a minimum. In Buifalo, with even better growing conditions where the trees nearly all exist on parkways or residential streets with wide parkings, and also where the number of removals is small, the cost is but twenty-five cents per tree. In ISTew Haven the cost of maintenance is approximately thirty cents per tree. Here again growing conditions are excellent, and the increased cost over that of Buffalo is prob- ably due to the greater number of removals made necessary because of the great preponderance of aged trees in New Haven. In all of these cities conditions are much better than those of ISTew York — and the cost figures under the conditions of Paris as noted above are of much more value as a means of comparison. Considering these factors, an estimate of $1 per tree per year would certainly seem to be a minimum estimate for maintaining trees in Manhattan streets. If we assume this figure, we would then require, to maintain the existing 15,000 trees in Manhattan, an original appropriation for maintenance alone of $15,000 per year. This sum would increase with the increase due to the annual planting increase of 500 trees, $500 per year until the system was complete. The Boroughs of Manhattan and Richmond, according to the figures of the last annual report, received a budget ap- propriation for the care of trees in streets amounting in round numbers to $18,000. As the greater part of this sum is expended in Manhattan it should be practically suffi- cient for first-class maintenance under proper street tree or- ganization. However, under the present arrangement the same forces have charge of tree maintenance in both streets 78 Collc(/e of Forestry and parks, and as a natural consequence a large part of this sum goes for the care of park trees rather than for street trees. A^eiv Planting: To secure the total budget for the proposed street tree bureau we must add to the expense of maintenance the amount which will be required for the annual new planting. The cost of planting street trees will be found to depend just as ill the case of maintenance upon local conditions, and when we come to examine the planting costs in various cities we hnd even more striking variations than in the case of maintenance costs. The cost of planting and establishing a street tree in various cities where systematic street tree planting is being done is as follows :* In Cleveland (planting oidy) $3 00 In Hartford .' ' 3 30 In Worcester 3 25 In New Haven 4 00 In ISTewark 4 65 In Baltimore 6 00 In Minneapolis G 4(5 In Buffalo Y 00 In Brooklyn 8 00 In ISTewark (with gratings) 10 65 In l^ew Haven (with gratings) lY 00 In Albany (with gratings) 35 00 In Boston, work done by contract including replacement guarantee 40 00 It is only in these latter cases that the type of planting at all corresponds with the type which is demanded on the majority of Manhattan streets. Careful estimates of tree planting according to the five different types of Planting Specifications, some one of which * Estimate or cxat-t figures furnished h\ the officials in charge of street tree Avork. .1 >^fn'ct Tree Susteui for Xeir Yorl- Citi/ 79 will meet all possible street conditions in Manhattan, liave been made and already described. The lowest of these esti- mates, that of Planting Specification No. 1, gives a cost of $10 per tree. This type of planting corresponds with that being done under similar conditions in Baltimore, Buffalo and Brooklyn, at similar cost. The most expensive type of planting as suggested for Manhattan, such as is represented by Planting Specifications J^os. 4 and 5 give an estiinated cost of from $40 to $60 per tree. The type of planting which will be most commonly demanded in Man- hattan, and which is represented by Planting Specifications 'No. 2 and 3 gives an estimated cost of from $15 to $35 a tree, according to the type of grating or surface treatment of tree pit used. These types of planting correspond with that being done under similar condition at figures of $17, $35, -and $40 in ISTew Haven, Albany and Boston. While it is difficult to determine exactly the proportionate amounts of planting, according to the various types of planting specifications, which must be done in Manhattan each year, a fairly accurate estimate will be as follows : Fifty per cent according to Planting Specification ISTo. 2. Twenty-five per cent according to Planting Specification Ko. 3. Fifteen per cent according to Planting Specification No. 1. Ten per cent according to Planting Specification No. IV. On this basis with 1,000 trees, suggested as the amount of the annual planting, w^e would get an estimated cost for the new planting each year as follows : 500 trees @ $15 00 $7,500 250 trees @ 25 00 6,250 150 trees @ 10 00 1,500 100 trees @ 40 00 .' 4,000 $19,250 Supervision: The only additional expense save phniting and inaiiitc- nan.ce would be for supervision and equi])ment, which is esti- mated at $7,500, the details of which estimate appear below. 80 College of Forestry We now find that the budget for our five-year planting and maintenance program described above becomes as follows : First Year: Maintenance of 15,000 trees @ $1 per tree $15,000 JSTew planting, 1,000 trees (see above estimate) . . 19,250 Supervision and equipment, estimated 7,500 $41,Y50 Second Year: Maintenance $15,500* $15,500 E'ew planting 19,250 Supervision and equipment 7,500 $42,250 Third Year $42,750 Fourth Year $43,250 Fifth Year $43,750 Adopting the 1,000-tree program which is advocated, and which would seem a reasonable minimum if any serious progress is to be made in perfecting the suggested system, would require twenty-one years to complete the entire tree- planting program and eleven years to complete the main sys- tem. The budget for the twenty-first year would be $51,750, which year would see the completion of the entire tree- planting program. Thereafter an annual budget of $35,000 or $40,000 should be sufficient to maintain the system in excellent condition and take care of all replacements due to the injuries or mortality. The conditions in Richmond are so radically different from those in Manhattan that it is impossible to furnish a combined estimate for the two boroughs. A sum of from * Annual increase in maintenance dne to annual increase in number of trees. A Street Tree System for New York City 81 $5,000 to $10,000 a year for the next decade, spent under the jurisdiction of the Manhattan organization would prob- ably secure for Richmond a satisfactory condition in the matter of street trees. The Bureau Okgaxization If systematic street tree control is to exist in Manhattan, a Bureau of City Forestiy must be created, and the control of such bureau must be in the hands of a forestry expert. A typical organization for such a bureau of forestry cap- able of carrying out the program we have already outlined could be secured by an organization composed as follows : Forester $2500-$4000 Assistant Forester and Entomologist $1800-82400 Five Laborers $750-8900 each The head of the Bureau, or City Forester, should be a man with technical training in arboriculture and landscape engineering, and with experience in the care and control of park and street trees. The salary suggested is from $:^,500 to $4,000, according to the ability, experience and years of service in the department. There is also suggested an assistant to the forester, a man of similar training and with a special knowledge of ento- mology. This man should have considerable experience in 82 College of Forestry the theory and practice of combating the diseases and insects which attack park and street trees, and shonld be capable of taking active charge of the spraying operations for the street tree bureau. There would also be necessary a clerk to handle all office records and permits, keep the cards of the street tree census up to date and carry on the necessary correspondence of the Bureau. The laboring forces as suggested would consist of three ex- perienced foremen who will have direct charge of the street tree laborers, handling spraying, cultivating, watering and pruning operations, the replacing of young trees, and the removals of old ones. The three gangs suggested would have an average force of five men each, to be increased as necessary in the planting and spraying seasons. There w^ould also be one or more foremen as required, having charge of the care of the trees in parks. These men with their working forces would be paid from the park opera- tion funds, and so are not included in our estimate. The budget for the first year of the program based on the proposed organization, and with the foregoing estimates of supervision, planting and maintenance costs can now be examined in detail. It would be as follows: I. Supervision and Equipment: Office at^t> Oveihiead (1) Forester $2,500 Entomologist 1,800 Clerk . . .' 1,000 (2) Equipment 2,200 $7,500 An imperative immediate need in Manhattan is automobile transporta- tion for present power sprayers. II. Maintenance: Three foremen at $1,000 each $3,000 Fifteen laborers at $750 each 11,250 Teaming estimate 3,000 \ ■ $17,250 A Street Tree System for New York City 83 ($2,250 of this amount is for labor in establishing and replacing young trees and is chargeable to new planting.) III. A^ew Planting: (Estimate $19,250; see above.) Amount charged to new planting for labor in establishing and replac- ing young trees is $2,250, leaving a balance of $17,000 Total $41,Y50 jSTote. — The annual estimate of $2,200 for equipment should be sufficient to take care of salary raises during the first few years, since the demand, for new equipment will steadih^ decrease after the first year. X, ®1)P ^trrft ®rpp (Epmsuh 3tH Purjiuar aub Balitr The idea of a street tree census is one wliieli has received mneh attention by city forestry departments, and one which appeals to any city street tree administration upon tirst approaching the street tree problem. The value of a permanent tree record to a bureau or department of city forestry is self-evident. It is difficult if not impossible to secure economy and efficiency in maintenance cost without knowing the number and kinds of trees being maintained, while without a census kept up to date the labor and cost of inspection and investi- gation will be increased many fold. However, the clerical labor involved in securing a tree census, as such is com- monly kept, and the maintaining of it after it has been secured, has caused many city forestry departments to abandon the scheme. In approaching this problem in Man- hattan the Avriter realized the necessitj' of securing a form of census which would eliminate the labor and effort of a single-tree-card-system, book system or m.ap system. After considerable experiment a card system especially adapted to conditions in Manhattan has been worked out which will, it is believed, secure the desired results with a minimum of effort and expense. The tree census based on this form of card can be very easily made in the first place, and then kept up to date with a modicum of labor when completed. The block is made the unit for the individual card. All reference to tree species and details of planting are made by number or letter. The record is to be kept in pencil to be erased and changed as any changes occur in tree conditions so that it is seldom if ever necessary to make duplicate cards or repeat a record. (84) A Street Tree Stjslcin for Xeir York City 85 The gatlieriug of the data for this census is well under way and a fair portion is already transcribed upon the cards.* This work should be readily completed during the next two months hy one man in the field and a portion of one oifice man's time. By the beginning of the new fiscal STREET /^J- ^/^J/ IS PLANn H SYSTEM, /VOL- O.DVIS..Lt,.ffiI BLOCK »-J4 BLOCK Co/c//^^S /O /WJ^^O^^ 'sr VARIETV O.B.H. CONDITION GUARD GRATING STAKE REMARKS S'oz 4 fi" /?/9/9(/ fl fictirYf Arr>A-f/? p// 7' s ,^f>t>f/r /i(fr/r r-fy^/y/r- -?/-< „ 6* , /f „ 7' , /? i"// „ rt' fl^f/ /^liV/Tftvt^ onffj//?fr an/y .3 './a. P/9 /a ?' yf>o ' R /)fat^ / X'e>ot///y>^ a/7 A/ocA /6 ^ec A? />^f/^/' /z* L. D. Cox, L. A. Specimens Tree Census Card Typical Entries. Explanation : Varieties of trees indicated by number. (No. 4 — Norway Maple.) (D. B. H.)— Diameter Breast High. Style of guard indicated by letter. (A — wire mesh, style " Newark ".) Style of grating indicated by letter. (B — • cast iron grating, style " New York ".) Style of stake represented by letter. (A— 2|" x 2\" x 12' Chestnut Stake.) Planting Specification indicated by number (see Chapter 7). Note in corner for use in estimating planting and cutting requirements for any district. The dead trees are checked with red crayon co attract attention until removed. This card does not represent the exact condition of any street. It is merely typical. All entries to be made in pencil. year this census should be finished, and it will be found of great value to a forestry bureau when such is definitely established. With the record of the city's trees upon these cards it will be possible almost instantly to refer to any street block or * This was written September 1, 1915. 86 Colh'r/r of Forestry individual tree in any section of the city, and to learn the kind, size and condition of the tree or trees in question. The saving in time in investigating complaints regarding trees already several times investigated will alone be worth the cost of the census. In addition to the information regarding existing trees on any street the cards will also carry the information regarding each block in the city as to the desirability of planting and the variety of tree and the type of planting specihcation recommended. This informa- tion is to be derived from the results of the investigation of this report or from additional study of the problem made by the future forestry bureau. It is needless to point out the value of such information thus readily accessible not only to the officers in the park department but to those of other city departments which have to do with the control and con- struction of streets. With the establishment of a forestry bureau, maps should be prepared upon the basis of the card census indicating by color the location of the various kinds of trees. Such maps would be invaluable in handling the spraying work of the department. Certain varieties of trees require spraying at one time of the year and others at another, and no man can carry in his memory the exact location of all the trees in a district so large as Manhattan. Without such maps there will always be a considerable variation in the efficiency of the spraying campaign from year to year. The information of this census should be further comple- mented by a map showing the location of all past and future planting, and thus serve as a record of progress w-hen used in connection with the maps of the proposed street tree system which accompauies this report. XL ^trfd iEvn piatttittg ttt EirlimonJi The j^roblem of planting; and maintaining street trees in the Borongh of Richmond is, of course, radically different from that in Manhattan, since the general condition in the various towns and villages of Staten Island are normally those of a surburban community. One would naturally ex- pect to find on Staten Island conditions for growing street trees of a most favorable nature, and in many cases this is true. However, due to the unusually narrow streets which prevail, this is not always the case. It is doubtful if we will find anywhere in the country streets with such uniformly narrow parkings (often no more than twelve or eighteen inches wide), as exist in this bor- ough. The condition has doubtless come about as a result of adapting modern street design with its paved roadway, curbs and sidewalks to ancient counti'v roads, without hav- ing these roads replated, widened and laid out as city streets of normal street widths. This condition is a very serious one not only from the standpoint of the city forester but from that of the city planner who must foresee a growth to city conditions in this borough similar to that taking place in the other sections of ISTew York City. It may be and probably is out of the question to widen the older streets at this time, although it may have to be done some day. How- ever, all new streets should certainly be provided with more generous parking areas. It is evidently not always the custom to do so, for in several cases new streets have been built wdiicli follow the style of the older thoroughfares, with parkings from one to three feet wide. Neio Planting: In selecting trees for new planting in the narrow park- ings of Richmond we should endeavor to secure trees of small size and moderate growth, not only that these narrow (87) 88 College of Forestry streets may not be overcrowded with foliage, but in order that the unsightly appearance of heaving sidewalks and broken curbs may be reduced to a minimum. The Platanus Orientalis {The Plane Tree), so beautiful and hardy, and such a favorite for street use in other parts of the city is not suitable for the narrow streets of Staten Island although first rate on the wider thoroughfares. Its growth is so rapid that a large size is qviickly obtained making the disruption of curb and sidewalk a continuous annoyance. The Quercus Palustris {The Phi Oah) and the Gringko would be much more admirable trees for our purpose. The narrow spread and slow rate of growth make them well adapted for the narrow streets and scant parkings. On the wider streets of Richmond where the sidewalks and parking areas are of reasonable width almost any satis- factory street tree such as the ISTorway Maple, Linden, Elm, etc., can be grown, since the general conditions of soil, moisture and air are excellent. Exist inr/ Planting : The trees which at present exist in Richmond, especially on the older streets are almost universally Soft or Silver Maples (Acer Saccharinum) . Always a poor street tree, this tree is especially unsuitable here. Its rapid growth and large size have already played havoc with much of the curbing and sidewalk, while the tendency of the tree to be broken by wind and stoi-m has caused them to be pruned severely and wrongly, which has given ugly shaped trees full of dead and dying branches. The great majority of these old trees contain much dead wood, and are not worth pruning since such a process must be a continual and expensive one if the trees are to be kept in any reasonably attractive condition. It will be far better to remove them as rapidly as possible and replace with bet- ter varieties of trees such as T have suggested. In order to reduce any public clamor which might arise at a wholesale removal of these trees, sufficient tliinning A Street Tree System for New York City 89 could be done to permit new planting at fifty-foot intervals with young trees. After a few years when the new trees have attained a fair size the remaining old maples could be removed, and would be scarcely missed. There are no park areas woi-tli mentioning at present existing in Richmond, so that no attempt has been made to suggest any system of tree planting as has been done for Manhattan. Doubtless in the near future a well organized park system will be Avorked out for this borough, and at that time a system of streets for tree planting should be decided upon to form those park connections which it is not possible to secure by parkway? and boulevards. .X''^i|.^ 4^. '.vVV \m'' :S ^! Xo He:y \ Firth A««nu* from Elaat COlh to \*%\ lOlh Str«*l i> lncarr*clly pHnlad. II ahould appvRr in blu* InatMid if PL-AN SHOWING PROPOSED SYSTEM OF STREET TREE PLANTING f^OPOUGH OF MANHATTAN ncPttODUCCD BY COURTESY or -THt A.U OHMAH MAP CO (M BPETEUSeN.Pt) BWAV ti Y " -v'^ s H 274 84 5»; "^=1? .°'^K" ■'■■'0 .ci^ - * * :^„ -"^^.^^ '^r^. %.<^^ ov^fe'. •^'^..^' ^*i^.^ ^ .^'\ V '/ ^^'\ "^r^ ^'^ *^ <,V ^ .^( -^An"^ ',{ >: '^ov^ 'AT^^* .^ V *. '^^f^'^ •^. -.^/..w. ^v'^^ '.^j j,--^^^ ^yj^j ^v'^. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS