Did anyone read the two articles relating to Peter Del Tredici in the February edition of Landscape Architecture Magazine? I thought they were fantastic. Far too often I've run into landscape architects who espouse "sustainability" and "native plant restoration" without understanding the ecological realities of their environment. Placing a tree in a 5'x5' hole in the sidewalk is inherently a non-native environment.

I live in the Midwestern USA which can have periods of extreme weather. It's impossible to find a tree that can survive in an urban environment without the assistance of fertilizers and irrigation. I've seen whole streets and highways in Kansas City with flashed native trees because the designer didn't recognize the climatic realities of the environment. It's incredibly frustrating as sustainability is a great concept, but few are taking the time to recognize that "sustainable" and "low maintenance" aren't necessarily compatible.

It becomes a question of what would you rather have: a native tree that has to be replaced every 2-15 years with low maintenance, or the best (possibly native, possibly exotic) tree with soils and water management that can survive the environment with moderate maintenance. Given the benefits of shade and heat island mediation, I prefer the latter. Your thoughts? Complaints? Agreements?