Skip to content
News
Link copied to clipboard

Washington Square oak expected to be removed soon

For the last, oh, 135 years, an oak tree has abided in the southeast corner of Washington Square. Like a woodland godmother, it has spread its leafy limbs over romance, protest, picnics and, no doubt, many other less dignified human activities that take place in urban park settings.

Bill Pelle, who lives on Washington Square, leans against the portable metal fence cordoning off a 135-year-old oak tree in the square. (Clem Murray / Staff Photographer)
Bill Pelle, who lives on Washington Square, leans against the portable metal fence cordoning off a 135-year-old oak tree in the square. (Clem Murray / Staff Photographer)Read more

For the last, oh, 135 years, an oak tree has abided in the southeast corner of Washington Square. Like a woodland godmother, it has spread its leafy limbs over romance, protest, picnics and, no doubt, many other less dignified human activities that take place in urban park settings.

It has served as home to wildlife and inspiration to painters and has contributed to the neighborhood's general happiness.

The tree is a beauty, rising more than 70 feet above the park and extending its lush canopy nearly 80 feet. To the untrained observer, it looks remarkably healthy for its age.

It is not.

The tree's days are numbered. But just how many has been a matter of considerable controversy among neighbors and the National Park Service - and that was before the squirrels got involved.

On Wednesday, when a visitor ignored signs warning people to give the oak a wide berth and hopped over the railing that now encircles the tree, a National Park Service employee instantly appeared.

"You want to walk around the barrier, because this guy could go at any minute," he said. "In fact, I'm prepared to run. That's how scary it is. This is not a tree you want to be around on a windy day."

The first alarm was sounded in January, when a maintenance worker noticed a five-foot-long crack in the trunk. An arborist was hired to assess the tree's condition. On Feb. 5, Jason Lubar, associate director of urban forestry at the Morris Arboretum, probed the fracture with a saw. The blade whooshed right through, into a large, off-center cavity inside the trunk. In his report to the park service, Lubar reported that the tree was unstable and recommended that it be taken down "as soon as possible, but definitely before [it] leafs out, when wind forces on the tree will substantially increase, thereby escalating the risk of tree failure."

Three months and two concurring professional opinions later, the oak still stands.

Depending on your point of view, the credit or blame lies primarily with William Hawkins.

Hawkins is a British-born marketing and communications specialist who has lived across from Washington Square for more than 30 years. When he and several other neighbors learned of the tree's imminent demise, they met with Cindy MacLeod, superintendent of Independence National Historical Park, to request a stay of execution.

The park was once a densely forested expanse but has become "sterile," Hawkins said. While he said he understands the need to keep the park safe for visitors, he believes that too often the National Park Service errs on the side of caution: "They have zero tolerance for any tree that is a little bit out of shape."

MacLeod agreed to get a second opinion and, in the meantime, had the metal barriers put up around the tree. When the second arborist confirmed what the first had found, Hawkins and his neighbors asked if the park service would mind if they hired their own arborist for an independent assessment.

"There is still a sense of mistrust among concerned citizens," said Jane Cowley, public affairs officer for the park service. As long as the area was cordoned off, she said, the delay seemed reasonable.

In the third report, dated April 7, the neighbors' arborist, John Smithmyer, concurred that the tree had to come down:

"The lower stem represents a VERY HIGH RISK when incorporating the evidence of a vertical crack.. . ."

With that report in hand, Hawkins conceded that the tree was doomed, but he asked the park service to hold off for a few weeks more. This time, for the sake of the squirrels.

"Squirrels have babies at the end of February until March," he said. "The tree coming down would kill most of them."

Some people consider squirrels vermin, Hawkins acknowledged. "But those of us who prefer to treat animals humanely have a problem with the way governments treat the environment and the wildlife within it," he said.

In her stewardship of the park, MacLeod must care for its animals as well as its plants, buildings, and monuments, said Cowley, so initially the superintendent "agreed to the end of the May to give the wildlife some chance."

But this further delay has upset neighbors who feel less sympathetic to squirrels.

"I'm all for wildlife, but they're rodents," said William Pelle, a retired executive of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development who has lived for 20 years across from the square. "And I'd love to keep the tree if it's preservable, but the information is it could fall at any minute. The barriers limit our ability to use the park. It's a shame, but we need to do what we need to do. I don't understand why the National Park Service can't make a decision."

On April 23, MacLeod sent Hawkins this e-mail:

Dear Bill,

We are now getting unfavorable comments about the tree remaining as a hazard to humans, the dirt/mud path created by walking around the fence, and the unsightliness of the fence.   My legal advisors are also not happy with postponing removal of the tree.

Would you ask your fellow neighbors (more than just the other two who met with us) about the situation now, and confirm that there is support to delay removal of the tree?  I am trying to do the right thing by the neighbors, but if there is really mixed opinion, I may have to make a different decision.

Sincerely,

Cindy

Hawkins immediately wrote to the senior vice president in charge of campaigns at the Humane Society of the United States asking for help in urging the group's members to "flood" MacLeod's e-mail with "something like the following":

SUBJECT:  Washington Square Oak

MESSAGE:  Please add my name to those who do not object to the presence of the fencing around the Oak Tree in Washington Square. The extra weeks to enjoy this wonderful tree are important."

MacLeod was out of town last week and unavailable for comment. But, Cowley said, "We are working toward taking the tree down at the end of the month."