Vancouver’s tree canopy is diminished — and so are we

With a loss of 23,000 healthy trees since 1996, overwhelmingly on private property, it is time Vancouver prioritized preservation of the city’s withering canopy over the clear- cutting of building lots to ease new home construction.

As columnist Barbara Yaffe reported this week, the number of trees felled annually on private property under permit — many to make way for larger homes — increased tenfold between 1996 and 2013.

Accordingly, the tree canopy that makes this city so glorious has diminished, from 22.5 per cent coverage in 1995 to 18 per cent today — a fact challenging the credibility of Mayor Gregor Robertson’s pledge that Vancouver will be the world’s greenest city by 2020.

If trees continue to be cut as in the recent past it is difficult to see how the city can achieve its coveted goal.

The problem, it appears, can be traced to the city’s appetite for densification and the wording of Vancouver’s tree protection bylaw which offers scant protection for trees impeding proposed construction on private property.

Whenever a tree interferes with a “building envelope” — even trees a century old — the bricks and mortar take precedence. This is problematic because half of Vancouver’s trees are on private property. And with the pace of demolitions and new builds having increased in Vancouver, the threat to the city’s urban forest is clear.

And consider how long it can take for a tree to mature; replacing the canopy lost over the past 20 years could take 40 years, say the experts.

The city, on its website, notes the value of Vancouver’s 139,000 trees, stating they “play an important role in creating and maintaining a healthy ecosystem by cleaning the air, absorbing carbon dioxide, producing oxygen, absorbing stormwater, reducing erosion and providing habitat and food for wildlife.” Not to mention keeping the city cool in summer and adding to its beauty.

And so, greater effort ought to be made to save mature trees that conflict with building intentions, even if development plans must be adjusted to do so.

Indeed, if greater priority were accorded the trees, perhaps architects would craft their plans with greater sensitivity to preserving greenery on residential lots.

Further, municipal permit fees charged for felling trees are insignificant compared to the profits to be made by cutting the trees and expanding the size of homes. Prices should be boosted, with revenues funnelled to the municipal tree planting budget.

The city last April tightened the tree protection bylaw, curtailing the right of residents to cut one healthy tree per year on their property as long as it is replaced with another tree.

But this restriction, while worthwhile, did not go far enough. Which was demonstrated when a concerned neighbour in late November photographed a lot in the 3800- block of West 38th Ave. recently cleared of six towering fir trees, and sent photos to the media.

The city said the trees were destroyed because they interfered with the building envelope of a residence about to be constructed, and five were not robust. The episode reflects a genuine loss for the neighbourhood involved.

There must be a better way. It is up to city council to find it.