Removing trees to restore views

[David Humphries]

This morning a new thread was started on the UKTC forum concerning a 'proposal' to remove a small number of copper beech trees that were not in the original layed out Humphry Repton designed landscape

 

copper beech felling at Kenwood House?

 

The trees in question are at the English Heritage site of Kenwood House in north west London

 

I live & work very locally to this site so thought I'd put up some visuals for anybody that is interested.

 

 

.

[David Humphries]

This 1870's ordnance map shows the site closer to how it looked in Reptons original design.

 

You can see that the beeches are not there.

 

(just for context, these maps show the actual trees in their approximate locations)

 

I've roughly plotted where the copper beeches are in the last map

.

[armybloke]

David, this seems quite common place in this neck of the woods. I can't reveal too much only to say that I have been requested to condemn trees on account of view restoration. Needless to say I refused the work!

[kentjames]

So just so I have this right in my head...

 

They are removing the trees to reinstate the original landscape design by Humphry Repton?

 

What's next? Are they removing the paths the visitors walk upon, the buildings, and daffodils because he didn't put them in?

 

Seems ridiculous to me, the landscape has evolved and I am sure they have some significant amenity value etc?

 

J

[High Scale]

Remove trees for views.

 

Felling the Giant Redwoods at Ashton Court - a set on Flickr

[Daniël Bos]

Interesting, If the grounds were planned with all the individual trees marked out on the designs, then removing them would restore it to something nearer to the original state.

 

It was designed without them so somebody a while ago must have thought it would improve the situation, a bit like an art student painting in an extra figure or two in one of Vermeer's paintings...

[David Humphries]

Interesting, If the grounds were planned with all the individual trees marked out on the designs, then removing them would restore it to something nearer to the original state.

 

It was designed without them so somebody a while ago must have thought it would improve the situation, a bit like an art student painting in an extra figure or two in one of Vermeer's paintings...

 

I've been told that the the coppers were planted post 1950, but I think they may be a little older.

 

 

 

trunk close up shows early signs of Claus Matthecks 'old sock' associated with internal decay

 

.

[Gary Prentice]

Why only the copper beech? None of the group appear to be included in the original planting.

 

Personally I think it pointless to attempt to create landscape restoration, in that it is an ever evolving process. Unlike an artists painting, which is a snapshot of a particular moment in time, landscapes change with maturity/senility and even the season. Should we be replacing trees in historic site (lost through natural causes) with the same species as originally planted or be introducing better new similar species or clones.

[Peter]

All I can see is a big stack of firewood.

[David Humphries]

All I can see is a big stack of firewood.

 

not sure you're entirely correct with your analogy here Peter.

 

quick biology lesson........

 

the first picture below is a 'big stack of firewood' and the second picture is quite clearly a 'living, biologically functioning tree'

 

there is actually a subtle difference

.