This initiative is being taken to acknowledge an opportunity to participate in the ONcycling of two of Launceston’s significant LANDMARK HERITAGEtrees – one an 80 year old Elm and the other a 100 Bunya Pine.
The TWOtrees website/presence is currently being UPdated in an attempt to answer some questions that in a way are everyone’s questions. They have, and will, come up as this project evolves.
Fundamentally, we would like to see every last skerrick of these TWOtrees’ ‘resources’ respected and used usefully in as many ways as possible! The pending loss of these trees to Launceston’s CULTURALlandscape rings alarm bells given the climate emergency that is upon us. That is not to mention the acknowledged need for change in the way PLACEmaking is realised in Launceston and like communities elsewhere.
Poignantly designers, makers, and cultural producers,community groups such as MEN’Ssheds etc. generally have, as always, a part to play in the agencies for change. It seems appropriate that Launceston’s community groups be approached to garner operational support, to enable the project to:
- Be people to become a ‘member’ of the COTW; and
- Participate in any way that individuals and groups within their networks see fit and are enabled to participate in the project and kindred projects; and
- Over time to both initiate a project OR in some way participate in one.
APRIL 2025 NB: This LINK is to a video documenting a precedent project 2008
Currently, this is very early days albeit that in the case of the Bunya, arrangements are already in hand for its removal and recovery. Some steps have been taken to secure its ‘wood’ and despite its demise there appears to be a way opening to pay due respect to this tree’s place and significance in the city’s CULTURALlandscape.
As for the Elm at York Park, there is a proposal being considered to move it to anther place but should that eventuate just 60plus percent of it will be relocated ,leaving a significant amount of wood to be used in some way. Both of these trees will require a heroic effort to achieve an outcome – either way a significant outcome.
What is being proposed?
Starting from the point that both these trees are significant trees with a significant amount of life left in them it is a dastardly idea to give them THEchop but the situation is what it is! In Launceston’s CULTURALlandscape it is a fact that they have soaked up a lot of carbon, plus they are emitting a significant amount of oxygen, and they are offering significant canopy cover, plus habitat for wildlife etc. They deserve much more consideration than they have received or were ever likely to receive given the exploitative mindsets that come in the wake of government decision making and the globalisation of economies.
That said, and given the POLITICALdecisionmaking ,we believe that given the determination of ‘governance’ the community needs the chance to see these trees being ONcycled at least and that done with respect. By-and-large they are being imagined as ‘surplus to requirement’ AKA “so much rubbish really” AKA “just a heap of firewood and mulch” and it is just not the case.
The hand wringing, and moral struggling and the teary eyes around the DECISIONmaking is palpable and the end it is cruel irony – albeit that its somewhat disingenuous seemingly. Sadly, it is also the case that some representatives are at the table to represent the STATUSquo given their investment in it. Politically, and currently so, again that is what it is.
Against this background, and challenging it, we’re attempting to put whatever needs to be there in order to:
- Purposefully enable these trees’ Community of Ownership n& Interest to have an audible voices so that they can treat the ‘materiality’ of these trees usefully plus see them treated with respect and ONcycled purposefully; and
- Demonstrate, that this is possible despite the plethora rules and regulations inhibiting innovation and constraining the community’s imaginative initiatives and especially so in the context of environmental sustainability; and
- Establish a model where communities can JAMMtogether (AKA collaborative thinking) towards finding more inclusive, and more sustainable outcomes into the future in situations like this.
Dimebag Darrell tells us “Jamming with other people will create energy and excitement that you can feed off, and which will help push you to do things you'd never dream of doing by yourself.” We imagine that people who belong to community groups, MEN’Ssheds etc.already know this.
As for any part anyone may play in all this and say in the Bunya tree’s happenstance, there is a significant amount of ‘millable timber’ in the tree. Getting right to the point, community group's track record etc., etc., etc. come with various histories. It has been said and is being to some extent … paraphrased “in the end these trees are just so much firewood and mulch … suck it up and get real”. US, well we’ll not die wondering about any of that!
Also, the people gathering around 'the coalition' harbour a fantasy that the day the ‘Bunya comes down’ it might just be possible to hold some kind of event where people can come watch and secure their souvenir etc. We’ll accept the wisdom of that old adage … you’ll never know unless you give it a go.
Just why are these trees being cut down?
Good question given that both are HERITAGEtrees cum SIGNIFICANTtrees:
- The Elm is coming down essentially because York Park is being ‘developed’ and the architects are unwilling to consider DESIGNsolutions that pays respect to the tree albeit that it is healthy and sound – not to mention the opportunity. The arborist’s report confirms this but Council nonetheless have determined that it must be removed to make way for development.
- The Bunya is coming down because the Heritage Commission has deemed that it needs to in order to protect the building. In any event, the Heritage Commission outranks Council. It is more than interesting to note that neither Council OR the Heritage Commission have placed conditions on what is to happen to the tree’s ‘materiality’ ..... Interestingly, both bodies have a shared ‘purposefulness’ to do with the amenity of ‘placedness’ and they are letting the ball go through .... Reference one of the COTW’s representations here … https://notrubbish.blogspot.com/p/twotreesrepresentations.html
Whatever happens, nothing can unless THEcommunity, takes some ’ownership’ albeit against the odds in many respects. Indeed, unless they can, and do, the STATUSquo will prevail.
We, as a community, rather doubt that we can afford to look ahead accepting that. This is a small thing but bigger things may come from it.
We’ve added to the website and will continue to do no matter what happens and does and who does not become a part of the COTW. The site’s links are there for context and to put more flesh on the bones: SEE
No comments:
Post a Comment