Fariview Trees Saved
Old & beautiful trees saves from destruction due to public pressure

Some of the oldest trees in Dublin found themselves under threat in recent weeks from a Dublin City Corporation plan to fell 49 historically significant trees to make space for a new cycle track along the side of Fairview Park closest to North Strand. This was in spite of the fact that there is a perfectly good cycle track already passing through Fairview Park, entering at the proposed start point for the new cycle track and exiting the park at the proposed end point. Being a straight line, it is also the quickest possible way to get between these two points...seemingly the plan was formulated to solve a non-existent problem.

            North Dublin Inner City Councillor Nial Ring was the first to recognise this and identify it as a threat to an integral part of Fairview’s, and, indeed, Dublin’s history. The oldest of these trees were planted in 1908 by the Irish Forestry Society in the Fairview Improvements Grounds (now Fairview Park) as part of an initiative to promote reforestation in Ireland. An impressive ceremone, in which six trees were named after a county borough (Dublin, Cork, Belfast, Limerick, Derry and Waterford), was held wherein the then Lord Mayor Gerald O’Reilly expressed hope that the Dublin tree would ‘not be shifted from where it was planted.’ Although Fairview Park did not come into being in its current form until 1934, those embryonic first steps of the IFS were highly influential and pioneered a nationwide interest and enthusiasm in urban ecology. It was a community-led, grassroots movement and the legacy of it can be seen in the public parks and urban green spaces present in modern Dublin.

            Although improved cycling infrastructure is, undeniably, a good thing, such improvements still need to be considered in the wider social context, which, often, is not the case. Many urban planning proposals seem to solve one problem (lack of space for cyclists) while creating others (environmental and cultural implications of felling historic trees along a main road). Rejection of such a proposal is not NIMBYing, as a certain correspondent claimed, but is, rather, a rejection of the poorly considered planning which permeates much of Dublin’s infrastructure; why not make the entrance at both ends of Fairview Park just a little more obvious and accessible and thereby encourage cyclists to use it, getting them off the road altogether? Or how about just sacrificing roughly a metre of road for that cycle track, as has been done all the way along the coast up until this place?

            The opposition to this project was inspiring. It was, in fact, enough to make the DCC rethink the entire plan. However, what is noteworthy is that this resistance was mostly stimulated by an appeal to the cultural cost rather than the environmental cost. This does not, of course, imply a public indifference to the felling of trees per se but just that the historical relevance of these particular trees was something with which many people could relate. It was, ultimately, this aspect which carried the day. These trees have a story which is interwoven with the story of the area. Dublin City Corporation would have seen fit to put an end to this story. The people of the area were, seemingly, unwilling to accept this ignominious end and wanted the story to go on along with all it represents.

            It also strikes me as intuitive that any project to improve cycling infrastructure should surely be based on environmental interest. The fact that push bikes do not spew fossil fuels into the atmosphere is, after all, one of the major advantages of cycling and is why many people do it. But, like the absence of cars, the presence of trees is also of intrinsic benefit to our environment. They are responsible for Carbon sequestration, the cleaning of our air, the housing of biodiversity and the improvement of our mental health (there is ample research to support this). And these trees are culturally significant as well as environmentally beneficial. It is, therefore, curious that Dublin City Corporation can stomach the inconsistency of cutting down 50 of Dublin’s most historically signifcant trees to build a cycle track. I’m reminded of E.O. Wilson’s thought-provoking assertion that  ‘Destroying the rainforest for economic gain is like burning a Renaissance painting to cook a meal’. Although this is not an entire rainforest of trees, the metaphor holds true. In this instance, there are definitely better ways to cook said meal so why can’t we save the Renaissance painting for future generations to enjoy?