Trees on Mission in front of The Millennium (www.SocketSite.com)
“Keeping in line with the post earlier this week about new trees on 3rd Street, I noticed these in front of the Millennium today on Mission.”
A Plugged-In Reader’s Report: Third Street Sprouts Some Trees [SocketSite]
Millennium Tower: Sales Timeline, Additional Details And Renderings [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by gh

    And they look great…really nice trees, and much needed down there.

  2. Posted by sf THE CITY

    They’re not natives!!! Send them to the gas chambers!!!

  3. Posted by Snark17

    These trees are not too interesting one way or the other. But the Millenium sure is a great addition to the SF skyline. If it were 10 stories taller it would stand out better, but it has excellent color and lines. Love it.

  4. Posted by flaneur

    Sure. Let us get a few more and catch upwith Dallas.

  5. Posted by flaneur
  6. Posted by snark17

    Milennium has a little more subtlety than Dallas, IMO. Not to worry, though, our very own giant penis shaped building is on the way.
    http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2008/03/san_franciscos_transbay_terminal_website_and_community.html

  7. Posted by invented

    As needed as trees are for Mission St. these are the wrong trees. Mission should only have deciduous trees or trees which let a lot of light to the sidewalk. The last thing we need when there’s so little sun hitting Mission street (Oct-Mar) is — more shade. And in endlessly foggy summer on a poorly sunlit street – leafy trees (these and magnolias for ex) are poor choices). We need as much sun as we can get. In a few years these trees will guarantee a cold and unwelcoming sidewalk. They’re one step better than the bulky and dark ficuses of Mission St. but they demonstrate a lack of awareness about sunlight and pedestrian preferences.

  8. Posted by Anemic

    For crying out loud. You would think that average temperatures in the summer in this city hover in the 20’s.
    Get a rope! You’re talking about nobodies pedestrian preferences but your own.

  9. Posted by jeff

    This is why I love Socketsite. A mention of the planting of a couple of innocent trees becomes the spark that starts World War 3.

  10. Posted by lolcat_94123

    We could use some trees (or *any* shrubbery for that matter) on the sidewalks in the Marina. I don’t care what kind.

  11. Posted by jamie

    Nice! Hopefully they allow street lamps to light up the sidewalk a little bit, but otherwise, yeah for trees!

  12. Posted by Delancey

    It’s interesting that the Millenium trees have branches all the way to the ground, whereas all the Mission Bay trees (when mature) will have their lowest dimensional branches above head height, perhaps to survive Giants fans?

  13. Posted by Delancey

    We could use some trees (or *any* shrubbery for that matter) on the sidewalks in the Marina.
    Trees or an shrubbery on Marina sidewalks would reduce the number of parking spots, and then you really would see the break out of WWIII.

  14. Posted by flaneur

    “It’s interesting that the Millenium trees have branches all the way to the ground, whereas all the Mission Bay trees (when mature) will have their lowest dimensional branches above head height.”
    Im this case, it might have to something to do with the absence of parking at the sidewalk.

  15. Posted by Arborist

    Those are temporary branches on the lower trunks of the trees. They help to develop a strong trunk and will eventually be removed. There will be plenty of room for wayward Giants fans in a few years.
    I’m not a real estate geek (yet) and I don’t know much about when we’re going to hit the bottom, but I’m a consulting arborist and I do know about trees. Finally a topic I can comment on.

  16. Posted by Rincon Hill Billy

    Anyone going to the Millenium grand opening gala extravaganza ball sponsored by the select few who closed on those units???

  17. Posted by ex SF-er

    This is why I love Socketsite. A mention of the planting of a couple of innocent trees becomes the spark that starts World War 3.
    ROFL. no kidding. Trees are probably my #2 area of interest for SF (behind increasing housing so that COL lowers). In the past when I brought it up people made it seem like trees were so fragile that they just died immediately no matter what heroic efforts you did.
    And if they didn’t, then they would grow so large to rip down power lines and shake the Earth like a giant earthquake crumbling the sidewalk to ashes.
    I remember the supposed wail of a poor handicapped woman who couldn’t get around SF if there were trees, because her wheelchair wouldn’t be able to get over the big cracks in the sidewalk.
    her quote:
    Also, you tree lovers? Tree roots are heck on my sidewalks. You want to plant trees, expect to pay extra to keep the sidewalks nearby flat enough for my wheels.
    Posted by: wheelchairgirl at September 26, 2008 12:33 AM
    =========
    Trees help to soften the harscape of the city. SF needs them dearly.
    I’ll repost my vision for SF again, for those of you who missed it when I first posted it. This is what a high density big city that’s tree lined looks like:
    http://glenwoodpark.com/greenstreet/images/favorites/lg/img_0025.jpg
    now compare this to Noe Valley and tell me how “beautiful” SF is again.
    (FWIW: there are obviously a few beautiful tree lined areas in SF, just not enough. the fact that they exists prove that they can be done).

  18. Posted by Justin

    @ex SF-er ,I recognize that street! Isn’t that Astor Street in Chicago? One of my favorite neighborhoods to walk around and admire the architecture when I am visiting there.
    Question, why do cities like Chicago allow their older trees to get so large, when many trees in San Francisco are cut back so that all you see is a thick wood 10′ tall stump with a couple of branches with minimal green leaves? I see this done by the city in lower Pacific Heights especially. Is it because of the overhead electric MUNI lines?

  19. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    Trees or an shrubbery on Marina sidewalks would reduce the number of parking spots …

    Can someone explain how trees planted on the sidewalk would reduce the number of parking spots, in the Marina or anywhere in SF?

  20. Posted by Delancey

    @badlydrawnbear:
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/10/09/MN1566.DTL
    Subjectively, I seem to notice sidewalk cars in the Marina more than I do any other neighborhoods.

  21. Posted by Joe Native

    http://glenwoodpark.com/greenstreet/images/favorites/lg/img_0025.jpg
    This photo is oppressive. The trees dominate the skyline and literally rob me of my light and air.
    They also block my view, ruin my sidewalk, and provide habitat for a host of dangerous creatures.
    Stop trying to change SF to look like anyplace, usa.

  22. Posted by Mole Man

    Dangerous creatures, LOL

  23. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    Thanks Delancey, I kind of suspected that was the case.
    I have to say I have never seen a city so strapped for cash not see the goldmine of issuing tons of tickets and towing all these cars. If you pulled the sidewalk parking thing in Chicago it would be a big ticket, a tow, and then storage fee starting the second the car arrived in the impound lot totaling several hundred dollars and many hours of your time to retrieve you car.

  24. Posted by ex SF-er

    They also block my view, ruin my sidewalk, and provide habitat for a host of dangerous creatures.
    ROFL. best comment of the week.
    Finally, a new argument that I haven’t heard before about why trees are so horrible. I’ll file that one away. (if I’m not eaten by a Sabertooth tiger hiding in a tree)
    ===========
    @ex SF-er ,I recognize that street! Isn’t that Astor Street in Chicago?
    I didn’t take the picture, so I’m not 100% sure.
    That said, the first building on the right DOES look like 1444 Astor
    You have incredible eyes. even I wouldn’t have guessed the address until you said Astor St. after comparing many views, I think you’re right.
    Socketsiters are amazing.
    Look at the shape of the windows:
    http://www.galenfrysinger.com/gold_coast_chicago.htm
    and also compare the nex door building:
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_zJpnTu57Koc/Sbmr0XQVvPI/AAAAAAAAH9o/4aIwsuLC2so/s400/LI-archi-GCD-550b.jpg

  25. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Justin – Its called “topping” and it seems to be an all-California thing, not just SF. Its ugly and I think it may be bad for the tree’s health. Perhaps “Arborist” can chime in with a 2nd chance to apply his knowledge.
    badlydrawnbear – parking tickets as well as traffic tickets are usually net-zero revenue proposition for most municipalities. Sometimes even negative revenue. The ticket revenue barely cover the costs of the bureaucracy that that generates them. I’m not sure about SF’s situation though.

  26. Posted by ex SF-er

    oops:
    after editing, my last post isn’t clear.
    Look at the first building on the right in this picture
    http://glenwoodpark.com/greenstreet/images/favorites/lg/img_0025.jpg
    then compare that picture to the other two.
    you can see that it’s likely the same building (very unique architecture)
    the windows are the same
    and the next door building is the same as well.

  27. Posted by anon

    Milkshake, SF makes more on each DPT officer than they pay out, though that amount has declined significantly over the last six months as more neighborhoods have gone to every other week street cleaning. What was done to save money has actually cost the city a LOT (though it has saved residents money, of course).

  28. Posted by Eric in SF

    Justin – I think you’re talking about pollarding, like the trees in Civic Center Plaza and between the de Young and Cal Academy. Maybe our lurking arborist can educate us on why California loves to pollard our trees?

  29. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    Thanks for the pic of the Chicago greenery. After moving to San Francisco it took me a little while to figure out why the city seemed so much harsher and unwelcoming the Chicago. Finally, I realized it was the unending wave of concrete that make up San Francisco sidewalks.
    It’s really amazing the difference that removing some of the pavers in San Francisco and adopting a more “Chicago” style sidewalk would have on the atmosphere of the city.
    For those who don’t know Chicago that image of the residential street is not unique to just a few “upscale” neighborhoods, most of the residential areas in Chicago have grass and trees next to the street, a paved sidewalk, and then more grass and/or planting next to the buildings themselves. This in spite of the heavy use of salt and massive piles of snow for months that really put the grass, shrubs, and trees to the test.
    Of course this also takes care of that “parking on the sidewalk” issue since you would basically need to park on a tree to do the same thing in most of Chicago.

  30. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    Of course there is a downside to all those trees in Chicago …
    http://blogs.trb.com/news/weather/weblog/wgnweather/tr1082307.jpg

  31. Posted by justin

    “I think you’re talking about pollarding, like the trees in Civic Center Plaza and between the de Young and Cal Academy”
    @Eric in SF- thank you for reminding me about the trees in the Civic Center plaza as well. They have been hacking those poor trees that way since at least 1988 (when I moved to S.F.). Maybe they ruin trees like this in other California cities, but I sure notice it here.
    One city I know of where trees are valued in California is Pasadena. Old neighborhoods in Pasadena have beautiful canopy trees and these trees, along with the craftsman architecture, have added a lot to the value of homes there.
    This is El Molino street in Pasadena..
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/images/2008/04/18/dmfissgw.jpg

  32. Posted by Arborist

    The trees between the de Young and Cal Academy are indeed pollarded. This is a very stylized form of pruning that works with only a few varieties of trees. The trees must be trained young and it needs to be maintained every year (or every two years if you must). It comes from ancient European agricultural practices, and pollarded trees can live 100+ years.
    Some people love it, some people hate it. Those that hate it point out that the name comes from the Norman French word for “to behead”
    Topping is different. It’s unhealthy, it promotes decay, splitting and broken branches.
    And then there is shearing. Shear madness.
    http://www.dbg.org/index.php/gardening/gardeningarticles/articles

  33. Posted by Tree Lover

    I’m going to sit in front of those trees and make sure Snark17 doesn’t try to harm them or cut them down. On another subject, how much are these units going for now?

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *