Reply To: The Greens and O Connell Street

I agree on the latter point, if it is possible for them to be replanted than this should be done – the Croppy’s Acre is a good idea.

I do still agree the trees should go, the continuity of the street must be maintained. However I think one of the primary arguements that has been made for removing them – that many more trees will be planted and in a fashion that will improve the street – is now redundant.
The spokesperson for the CC said of the older trees, “From an architectural point of view, it was felt their height didn’t lend itself to the design of the street in terms of symmetry.”
Well the newly planted median trees don’t either (I don’t refer to the plaza limes) – yes they are symmetrical when viewed north-south, but from the much more important aspect of the side view facing into the street, they are nothing short of incoherent compared with what used to be there.

O’Connell Street’s very identity was defined by a linear planting of trees; the primary feature that made it unique in the city is now gone. It was a boulevard, cloaked under a canopy of trees – now that it has at last been exposed, there is nothing there to highlight and reinforce this urban layout.
It has been stripped of its identity, now a series of ‘plazafied’ spaces rather than the avenue it once was.
I am surprised no comment has been made about this, perhaps cause I’ve flogged it to death here, but I really think it is a major blot on the whole O’ Cll St scheme.

The plaza works, the paving is beautiful – the limes equally so, the attention to detail refreshing, but the absence of the avenue effect a great loss.