New Haven Independent

Posted by: Ned | June 27, 2008 9:37 AM

I wouldn't be surprised if the trees were being cut down just to spite the neighbors.

Posted by: robn | June 27, 2008 1:01 PM

how about respecting trees that may have been aournd for 50 to 100 years and designing around them in the first place?

Posted by: 2nd Amendment | June 27, 2008 1:23 PM

What a joke! The city desecrates a church in short order, leaves the jobsite an idle mess for months at a time and is all of a sudden in a big hurry to cut down trees. What's wrong with this picture? Yep...the Everit St. residents certainly have a considerate neighbor in the form of the BOA and city officials. Wonder what it'll be like if and when the school does open? lol.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | June 28, 2008 7:09 PM

Ok I hope all that love and not so much love hooker will fight for these trees! We are a city screaming "WE ARE GREEN: well what the heck! Any job site that has large trees should be making the effort to work around them. And then to top it off this is a play area!!??? And you do not want the cover of grand old New Haven trees surrounding it?? That is a no brainer! I think someone got a little lazy here and thought it was easier to just get rid of them!!
I drove through a part of the state this week and as we were going thought the less fortunate side of the town we looked around and could feel the desperation and depression of this city...and as we got to the better part of town we realized why that other area had the feeling of the depression . THERE WERE NO TREES not one curb side tree!! No trees around the houses!! Which goes to show, besides the obvious arguments on why we should not cut trees down, trees do so much more!! They make you feel safer, they bring a sense of home! And to take that away from the community that surrounds the school and the generations of children that will benefit from that feeling should be enough reason not to touch any that are left no matter were they stand.

Posted by: East Rockette | June 30, 2008 2:42 PM

Right on, Cedar Hill resident, on every point!

Even if they plant new trees, it takes years for a tree to grow up into a proper shade tree - more than twice the life-cycle of a kid going through that school.

All the research on kids and playspaces says that natural spaces foster more imaginative and collaborative play and more nuanced learning, and allow crucial space for quieter kids to sit down and have a think.

Is one of the ulterior motives a maintenance/money-saving issue? Fewer deciduous leaves to suck up every autumn? If so, shame on the board and the project for prioritizing budget over aesthetics and environment. You could easily organize the kids out there with rakes and bags, helping to nurture their mature landscaped grounds. Better for them on so many levels than bouncing balls around in a gym, anyway :-)

I say keep the existing trees and work around them (unless they're demonstrably sick or dangerous, which doesn't seem to be the case here). Underplant them with new trees too, so that if/when the old trees need to come down, the new ones have a head start.

Can we have an update on this story, NHI?

Posted by: Disgusted Neighbor | June 30, 2008 11:12 PM

Here's a sad update. All the trees that marked the south border of the lot (just inside inside the fence) are now gone, completely. This includes the huge old twin oaks (one still standing in the background of the first picture above). It is very difficult to believe that in that position they were truly in the way of any critical structure or surface. And now we are to be mollified by the possibility that when all is said and done a few living bottle brushes will be stuck in the ground and labeled "green landscaping"? Heaven forbid we might have anything with a root structure formidable enough to crack a driveway. On the other hand, maybe the Independent should try to follow the money. I strongly suspect that at least one major factor in this hideous decision was the prospect of a quick windfall on the sale of easily accessible native hardwood timber. Was there a sweetheart deal with a contractor in exchange for a lower bid? The lameness of the offered rationale begs the question.
Until the fence went up, I used to occasionally play with my kids under those very trees. Naively, I never imagined that the neighbors would have to try to monitor the site plan and wage a political battle to try to save such magnificent trees at the very edge of the lot. They would have provided not only a great place to play, but marvelous objects for learning, a warmer sense of a campus, some helpful wind and noise dampening, and even a little added privacy (no, I don't live in one of the facing apartments). This city with an arboreal nickname can wage a legal battle for years to get the property, but the site planners were apparently incapable of noticing its full value. That's a heck of a legacy not to be leaving for the kids who will attend this school. But gee, maybe "inner city" kids shouldn't be expected to relate to such things.

Posted by: David | July 2, 2008 4:05 PM

Unbelieveable. I live in the Elm City Apartments next to the New Hooker School. As tenants of this apartment we had no idea that these trees would be cut down - I was shocked one evening to find the corner tree facing Whitney Ave. cut down, then days later I was appalled to find the whole row of trees which lined the driveway next to the apartments gone. These trees provided much needed shade, bird habitat, and helped to quiet the noisy construction. I want to know if the developers will replace these trees and if the neighbors around this property will be consulted. It sure would be nice to get a knock on my door to discuss aspects of the construction that impact us! Is the tree chopping punishment from the city for the neighbors opposing this project in the first place?

Posted by: Ron | July 6, 2008 2:48 PM

As with most things that the Board of Education is involved with they don't feel its necessary to consult with the people who live in the community. They seem to feel they are smarter than the rest of us and we should let them do what they feel is best. Living on a street with 2 schools I know what a "good neighbor" the BOE is. We who live on the streets where they have property know we just get in the way. Just like the trees at the Hooker site. I have seen a string of 20 buses waiting on my street to drop kids off at the Lovell School on Nash St.

Posted by: David | July 12, 2008 12:27 PM

Another update on the school construction: It appears to me that the trees were removed to accomodate the heavy equipment needed to tear up the lot to make way for the school. I came to this conclusion as I was rudely shaken out of bed at 7:30 am the other morning - the machinery over there is now repeatedly banging the ground which is so loud it is hard to hear the phone ring, and so powerful that it shakes the apartment with each beat. I realize that yeah they have to do this to put in a foundation, etc., but is it really necessary to start this type of work at 7:30 in the morning? With all of the previous disruptions/devastation (of trees) could they at least wait until we are all at work?