Shitty choice :cry: Gum trees are bloooody revolting, no intense Autumn colour - just a dull, dead looking tree. If I want the bush, I'd go to the bush. And funnily enough, this is about a PUBLIC space, e.g. a park, so trees are an integral part of the design. Those complaining about the fuss being ...

Waewick wrote:hang on so the allergies are overstated but falling limbs aren't?

seems like an overreaction all round.

Mate, allergies aren't a big deal. Take an antihistamine. Plane trees all the way, they will cause the least amount of problems and they are the nicest.

"Huge problem with allergies"? :lol: :roll: I doubt it, sounds like a massive exaggeration / overstatement to me. I think people who complain about allergies are being damn fussy. Plane trees are everywhere in Australia and they do not cause significant problems to most people I know. Wear...

That's fair enough, but I think the variety shouldn't be so poorly clumped together. For example, evergreens and gums in one park, then another park with deciduous. Isn't that the decision now for Vic Square - just the 100 plane trees?

Apple is a bit eh with me lately, even more so now that I have seen this. Kind of frustrating. I thought they had job interviews and everything, though?

What's the big dealio with having gum trees anyway? :? They aren't a particularly nice looking tree, and I for one think it's unusual to see such a wildly diverse range of trees planted in the one area (I.E. deciduous vs. evergreen). I would much rather see nicer plane trees planted to keep in line ...