Langridge Street in Middle Park, which runs from Canterbury Road to Beaconsfield Parade, was once lined with Palm Trees. They were removed in the 1950s. What follows are any reports which I could find of these Langridge Street Palm Trees and the discussions around their eventual removal. I haven't been able to find a photograph of either Langridge Street or the Palm Trees.
In the Public Works report the Curator reported on tree maintenance including the fact that the palms in Albert Road and Langridge Street have been cut and tidied.
(Emerald Hill Record, June 5, 1943, see here)
From a report of a South Melbourne Council Meeting in June 1947
From a report of a South Melbourne Council Meeting in June 1947
The Curator reported that five Phoenix Palms in Langridge street, near the corner of Canterbury road, and one between Richardson and Page streets, on the south side, had grown to such a size that they were interfering with the overhead high tension wires; the Metropolitan Electricity Supply Department had been authorised to cut off the tops of the palms (which would eventually kill them) as a safety measure. The Committee upheld his recommendation that the six palms be removed and the nature strips prepared for future tree planting.
(Emerald Hill Record, June 14, 1947, see here)
From a report of a South Melbourne Council Meeting in August 1952
Council discusses Fate of Trees
The song of the trees echoed again through South Melbourne Council chamber on Wednesday night, when the clauses in the report of the public works committee with the removal of palms in Langridge Street and Albert Road, and elms in City Road - came under discussion.
From a report of a South Melbourne Council Meeting in June 1954
Langridge St. Palms. Middle Park A.L.P. Seeks Removal
At its meeting on Wednesday night the South Melbourne Council received a letter from the Middle Park branch of the Australian Labor Party. The letter thanked the Council for improving the lighting at the Albert Road - Kerferd Road railway viaduct; and asked the Council to replace the palm trees in Langridge Street, Middle Park, with more suitable trees. Cr. Layfield, moving that the letter be referred to the Works Committee, said that it was agreeable to receive a letter appreciative of an action by the Council.
As to the request regarding the Langridge Street palm trees, it would be recalled that some time ago the Council had reversed a decision to remove the trees when residents petitioned against their removal. Now, apparently, the objectors had changed their minds. He moved that the letter be referred to the Works Committee in order than an authoritative report could be received from the Curator.
Cr. Dwyer, seconding the motion, said that he thought the Council already had a report from the Curator on the Langridge Street palms. A start had been made some two years ago on the removal of the Langridge Street palms. They had been removed between Beaconsfield Parade and Paterson Street. But as the result of a petition by residents it was decided to let the rest of the palms remain.
Cr. Dwyer said that he thought that the petitioners at that time had been somehow or other misled into thinking that the Council had no intention of replanting the street with trees. He thought that the petitioners signed under that misapprehension. The palms were a danger in the street. They darkened the footpaths, and made the street unpleasant for pedestrians on dark winter nights. From his own point of view he thought them a menace. But it would be a good thing to take a Gallup poll of the people in the street. The motion was carried.
From a report of a South Melbourne Council Meeting in September 1947
The Curator reported: "During the last two months plane trees were pruned and palm trees in Albert road, St. Vincent place and Langridge street cut and cleared. Six palms were removed from Langridge street.
The Curator reported: "During the last two months plane trees were pruned and palm trees in Albert road, St. Vincent place and Langridge street cut and cleared. Six palms were removed from Langridge street.
(Emerald Hill Record, September 20, 1947, see here)
From a report of a South Melbourne Council Meeting in November 1951
More Old Trees for the Axe. Albert Road Palms To Go.
Recommendations by the Curator for the removal of more old trees in different parts of the municipality were agreed to by the South Melbourne Council on Wednesday night, on the recommendation of the Public Works Committee. The Curator reported that 41 palm trees in Langridge st. had grown too large and lost all their beauty, and recommended that they be removed, and that during next winter pyramid trees, similar to those growing in Danks st., be planted on the nature strip of this street.
He reported also that the palm trees on the southern reserve of Albert road, between Clarendon st. and the railway, had grown to such an extent that they had to be frequently cut back to avoid interference with telephone cables and overhead wires on the tramway track, and recommended that approval be given for the removal of the palm trees on both sides of Albert road in this section, the work to be carried out after the Royal visit next year. The young Queensland box trees already planted on these reserves would then have a chance to become properly established.
The Chairman of the Public Works Committee, Cr. Phillips, expressed himself as not altogether in agreement with a recommendation of the Committee. He said he did not agree with the substitution of pyramid trees for the palms, though he agreed that the palms should be removed. "The trouble is," Cr. Phillips said, "that we lack variety in the street trees used. Why not mix trees? This is especially desirable in view of the slow growth of pyramid trees. We should be more experimental and imaginative."
Cr. Duncan said he wondered if it would not be possible to accept part of the report and delete portion, thus enabling the curator to be consulted regarding trees in the particular area. There was no doubt that the palm trees should be removed. Cr. Phillips agreed to the deletion of that part of the clause referring to the planting of pyramid trees, to enable discussion with the curator as to the best type of tree to plant in place of the palms.
From a report of a South Melbourne Council Meeting in November 1951
More Old Trees for the Axe. Albert Road Palms To Go.
Recommendations by the Curator for the removal of more old trees in different parts of the municipality were agreed to by the South Melbourne Council on Wednesday night, on the recommendation of the Public Works Committee. The Curator reported that 41 palm trees in Langridge st. had grown too large and lost all their beauty, and recommended that they be removed, and that during next winter pyramid trees, similar to those growing in Danks st., be planted on the nature strip of this street.
He reported also that the palm trees on the southern reserve of Albert road, between Clarendon st. and the railway, had grown to such an extent that they had to be frequently cut back to avoid interference with telephone cables and overhead wires on the tramway track, and recommended that approval be given for the removal of the palm trees on both sides of Albert road in this section, the work to be carried out after the Royal visit next year. The young Queensland box trees already planted on these reserves would then have a chance to become properly established.
The Chairman of the Public Works Committee, Cr. Phillips, expressed himself as not altogether in agreement with a recommendation of the Committee. He said he did not agree with the substitution of pyramid trees for the palms, though he agreed that the palms should be removed. "The trouble is," Cr. Phillips said, "that we lack variety in the street trees used. Why not mix trees? This is especially desirable in view of the slow growth of pyramid trees. We should be more experimental and imaginative."
Cr. Duncan said he wondered if it would not be possible to accept part of the report and delete portion, thus enabling the curator to be consulted regarding trees in the particular area. There was no doubt that the palm trees should be removed. Cr. Phillips agreed to the deletion of that part of the clause referring to the planting of pyramid trees, to enable discussion with the curator as to the best type of tree to plant in place of the palms.
(Emerald Hill Record, November 10, 1951, see here)
From a report of a South Melbourne Council Meeting in July 1952
Residents opposed to the removal of Street Palm Trees
South Melbourne Council on Wednesday night received a letter from residents of Langridge Street, Middle Park, and of Beaconsfield Parade, objecting to removal of the palm trees in Langridge Street. Of the signatories, 48 were opposed to the removal, and only one in favour. Cr. Duncan said that the decision to remove the trees had been reached some time ago. In his opinion the trees did not measure up to the standard which should be required of street trees - to provide either beauty and shade, or beauty, or shade. The palms did none of these. It would be better to remove the trees and replace them with suitable street trees. He moved that the matter be referred back to committee.
Cr. Trevorrow agreed with Cr. Duncan, and seconded the motion. In future, substitute trees should be planted before unsuitable trees were removed. Cr. Strickland spoke on behalf of the petitioners. He said that he had inspected the palms, and while those from Patterson Street to the Parade were in bad shape, those north of Patterson Street were in relatively good condition. The people in Langridge Street were proud of their palms, and were deeply concerned at the removal. They had a decided antipathy to small ornamental trees as substitutes, as these provide no shade. He suggested that the removal be delayed until the matter had been further investigated.
Cr. Hicks, in support of the palms, expressed his doubt as to whether other trees would thrive in the sandy area and windy atmosphere of Langridge Street. The matter was referred back to the works committee for further investigation.
South Melbourne Council on Wednesday night received a letter from residents of Langridge Street, Middle Park, and of Beaconsfield Parade, objecting to removal of the palm trees in Langridge Street. Of the signatories, 48 were opposed to the removal, and only one in favour. Cr. Duncan said that the decision to remove the trees had been reached some time ago. In his opinion the trees did not measure up to the standard which should be required of street trees - to provide either beauty and shade, or beauty, or shade. The palms did none of these. It would be better to remove the trees and replace them with suitable street trees. He moved that the matter be referred back to committee.
Cr. Trevorrow agreed with Cr. Duncan, and seconded the motion. In future, substitute trees should be planted before unsuitable trees were removed. Cr. Strickland spoke on behalf of the petitioners. He said that he had inspected the palms, and while those from Patterson Street to the Parade were in bad shape, those north of Patterson Street were in relatively good condition. The people in Langridge Street were proud of their palms, and were deeply concerned at the removal. They had a decided antipathy to small ornamental trees as substitutes, as these provide no shade. He suggested that the removal be delayed until the matter had been further investigated.
Cr. Hicks, in support of the palms, expressed his doubt as to whether other trees would thrive in the sandy area and windy atmosphere of Langridge Street. The matter was referred back to the works committee for further investigation.
(Emerald Hill Record, August 1, 1952, see here)
From a report of a South Melbourne Council Meeting in August 1952
Council discusses Fate of Trees
The song of the trees echoed again through South Melbourne Council chamber on Wednesday night, when the clauses in the report of the public works committee with the removal of palms in Langridge Street and Albert Road, and elms in City Road - came under discussion.
Cr. Cooper, referring to the fact that the Albert Road palms had "outlived their usefulness" asked the meaning of the phrase. Cr. Trevorrow suggested that the trees concerned were of the gentler sex. Had they been males they would have been curtly described as "just old."
Cr. Strickland said that he had a petition, signed by all except three residents of Langridge Street, pleading for the lives of the palms there. In the meantime, signatories had asked him to express to the public works committee thanks for the year's reprieve granted to the remaining palms north of Patterson Street; find to ask that it be made permanent.
Cr. Strickland said that he had a petition, signed by all except three residents of Langridge Street, pleading for the lives of the palms there. In the meantime, signatories had asked him to express to the public works committee thanks for the year's reprieve granted to the remaining palms north of Patterson Street; find to ask that it be made permanent.
(Emerald Hill Record, August 15, 1952, see here)
From a report of a South Melbourne Council Meeting in June 1954
Langridge St. Palms. Middle Park A.L.P. Seeks Removal
At its meeting on Wednesday night the South Melbourne Council received a letter from the Middle Park branch of the Australian Labor Party. The letter thanked the Council for improving the lighting at the Albert Road - Kerferd Road railway viaduct; and asked the Council to replace the palm trees in Langridge Street, Middle Park, with more suitable trees. Cr. Layfield, moving that the letter be referred to the Works Committee, said that it was agreeable to receive a letter appreciative of an action by the Council.
As to the request regarding the Langridge Street palm trees, it would be recalled that some time ago the Council had reversed a decision to remove the trees when residents petitioned against their removal. Now, apparently, the objectors had changed their minds. He moved that the letter be referred to the Works Committee in order than an authoritative report could be received from the Curator.
Cr. Dwyer, seconding the motion, said that he thought the Council already had a report from the Curator on the Langridge Street palms. A start had been made some two years ago on the removal of the Langridge Street palms. They had been removed between Beaconsfield Parade and Paterson Street. But as the result of a petition by residents it was decided to let the rest of the palms remain.
Cr. Dwyer said that he thought that the petitioners at that time had been somehow or other misled into thinking that the Council had no intention of replanting the street with trees. He thought that the petitioners signed under that misapprehension. The palms were a danger in the street. They darkened the footpaths, and made the street unpleasant for pedestrians on dark winter nights. From his own point of view he thought them a menace. But it would be a good thing to take a Gallup poll of the people in the street. The motion was carried.
(Emerald Hill Record, June 12, 1954, see here)
No comments:
Post a Comment