Every town and city has its King Street, Elm Street, Maple Street or Chestnut Lane. Have a closer look and probably you will find no Elms, Maples, Chestnuts or no clue about which King you are supposed to be commemorating. We do know what happened to the Elms, while we can only guess what happened to the other tree species. Only the town historian may give you an answer on the whereabouts of the King.
As landscape professionals we know about the many reasons why trees in urban areas don't do well or why they don't reach maturity. Look also at any older private estate or older Municipal Park, and try to recognize the original intent of the landscape design. This may be difficult because many of the original plantings or landscape features have disappeared or have been fixed or replaced, with no particular attention given to the original idea. So much can happen to a built landscape over a period of ten years or more, that one wonders why the designer, builder or care giver of these landscapes had so little influence in the shaping of the landscapes' destiny. Is it a question of choosing the right plants for the right location? Do we apply the appropriate maintenance techniques? Do we actually care about landscapes after they have been built? Should we, as the originators of these landscapes, become more involved and thus responsible for the actual care and health of the landscapes, as medical doctors are in their patient care, from the cradle to the grave?
We do know that old trees have to endure wind and ice damage or that they have to compete with other trees for survival, and that many do not survive for various reasons. We also recognize the fact that this disappearing act is even more common with deciduous and evergreen shrubs. Without regular pruning and rejuvenation pruning, shrubs tend to become unattractive and a nuisance due to the fact that they outgrow their space and compete with others. It comes to no surprise then to see them removed, leaving old landscapes only with a backdrop of struggling and stressed trees with a few token underplantings of annuals or grass. The question is: what can we do to resist this trend of declining landscapes?
| Lifespans |
Architectural or engineered structures tend to have a longer lifespan than landscape structures. Being built of stone, concrete and steel, with foundations and protective roofs, the life of these structures depends much on these the longevity of the material itself, and their destruction may only come by natural disasters, wars, obsolescence or urban redevelopment. This is not necessarily the case with disappearing landscape structures. If a landscape has outlived its usefulness or when the plants have reached the end of their life, it is quickly being replaced with another, or more often with another land use, such as a parking lot. Environmental impacts, redevelopment pressures or the built-in obsolescence of plant life contribute to the limited life of built landscapes. Even famous and historic landscapes had to struggle to survive to this day. Places such as the gardens of Versailles, Villa D'Este or Central Park have survived in their original form only because of political will and a tremendous effort and energy spent on their maintenance and reconstruction. These old landscapes have retained most of their structures and land forms with little upheaval, while much of the vegetation had to be replaced, often more than once. Without the expenditure of lots of money and without a rigorous maintenance plan, these and similar landscapes would have long ago reverted back to an ecological climax condition, or would have been replaced with another land use.
It is not only the "old" and historic landscapes that are threatened by the various destructive influences. Relatively new landscapes have come and gone. Again look around and see how many landscapes built in the forties, fifties or sixties are still
