Trees and Art: Can We Have Both?

Knoxville Urban Guy·
Culture
·44 Comments
Zephyr, Lubbock, Texas

That’s the question that has been buzzing online in recent weeks in response to the plans to place a sculpture, entitled “Pier 865” in Country Music Park at the corner of Summit Hill and Gay. The sculpture, and more particularly its base, would, if placed as planned, require the removal of five healthy, mature trees. The trees include four willow oaks and one elm tree.

The sculpture itself, a work by French sculptor Marc Fornes, and fabricated by his THEVERYMANY company based in New York City, is completed and either ready to ship or has shipped. At $500,000, it is the most the city has paid for a piece of art. The art pictured at the front top of this article is Zephyr in Lubbock, Texas and is virtually identical to our piece, though theirs is slightly smaller.

Save the Trees Protest, Country Music Park, Knoxville, September 2022
Save the Trees Protest, Country Music Park, Knoxville, September 2022
Save the Trees Protest, Country Music Park, Knoxville, September 2022

There has been a good bit of criticism of the project recently. Some lament the lack of connection to the city or to country music. Others point to the irony of a metal canopy replacing an actual canopy. Suggestions have been made that the piece might be better suited for the World’s Fair Park.

In the end, the sculpture is most certainly, for better or worse, going to land in the intended spot. The local Sierra Club has proposed shifting it just a bit on the site in order to preserve the trees. With the planned installation looming this fall, there is resistance to a change of plans.

Save the Trees Protest, Country Music Park, Knoxville, September 2022
Save the Trees Protest, Country Music Park, Knoxville, September 2022

The argument for the trees, of course, is that mature trees in downtown are in relatively short supply and they add to the health of everyone by cleaning the air, even as they provide shade and help reduce the downtown temperature, which stays higher than surrounding areas due to the quantity of heat absorbing surfaces. While the city plants trees equal in total circumference whenever they cut trees, it would be decades before those saplings offered the same benefits as these older trees.

A group gathered last Friday evening to have a art exhibition/protest promotion the preservation of the trees. A petition was circulated on which people could register their support. If you’d like to sign that petition, urging City Council to support the resolution, you may do so here. 846 people have signed the petition so far.

Save the Trees Protest, Country Music Park, Knoxville, September 2022
Save the Trees Protest, Country Music Park, Knoxville, September 2022

The topic is up for discussion at City Council tonight because of a resolution brought by Councilpersons Seema Singh and Amelia Parker. They propose, “A Resolution to pause the Public Art Committee’s Sculpture Project for the Cradle of Country Music Park for six months to allow time for the City to determine a way to preserve the mature trees on the park.”

If you have an opinion about the issue, you will find all the contact information for City Council members here.

Previous ArticleInside the North Country (Non-Dylan Fans, This May Not Be For You)
Next ArticleParis Woodhull Illustrations is Open

Related Posts

44 Responses

  1. The argument for destroying the trees now in the park seems to be to join the old city to Gay Street and provide a place for concerts and performance in an area with high traffic noise and multiple residential buildings. It is usually mentioned that it will draw and keep young professionals in Knoxville. If we keep putting in concrete and “artwork” while altering our environment there will be no downtown for the youth of our future. The park was originally intended to honor our contribution to the world of music. This Pigeon Forge like development will, in my opinion, should be in our overdeveloped entrance to our local National Park which is also in the process of being destroyed!

    Reply

  2. Honestly, I don’t understand why this is so hard to figure out. Why does this art piece have to go EXACTLY in that spot? There are many locations where that piece would fit without removing any tree canopy. The city could easily order a smaller or differently shaped piece for the Country Music Park, which hardly any uses in the first place. Even if shifting the location slightly will help save the trees, then that is what the city should do. I’m all for the are and I’m all for the trees, so a change needs to be made.

    Reply

  3. The resolution really should be a six month pause to come up with a more robust tree protection and preservation ordinance for Knoxville. The problem here will keep coming up. Both Nashville and Asheville have updated their tree protection measures. Time for Knoxville to follow.

    Here is what Asheville does: “As an alternative to preserving trees, owners can replace them or make a payment to have trees planted. But the ordinance favors preservation, requiring proportionately bigger efforts for replacement and payment.

    On the low end, the ordinance would require half-acre lot with 40% tree coverage to preserve two large trees (10 inches in diameter) if it were subdivided into two lots, said Chris Collins, city site planning and development division manager.”

    https://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2020/09/09/asheville-votes-restrict-private-property-tree-cutting-looks-stem-891-acres-canopy-loss/5751585002/

    Reply

  4. Save the trees! We need them downtown! The original Julie Warren marble sculpture was a beautiful example of
    scale and creativity. An oversized sculpture could be placed on the World Fair site and enjoyed by many.

    Reply

  5. Why do we need this art piece crafted by an artist outside the Knoxville community? Our city is teeming with talented creators (hello, The Maker City) that, if provided adequate funding, could build something bespoke and fit for a location that doesn’t compromise our mature trees. Spending the most we every have on a piece of art that’s nearly identical to one in another city, crafted by someone outside The Maker City, is preposterous.

    Reply

    1. Amen!

      500K! There are certainly multitudes who would donate their time and effort or even work with the youth in our community to create art and spread knowledge! This money could have been used in a better way!

      Reply

  6. This is possibly the worst idea anyone could possibly come up with for that spot. The trees are appreciated for their shade, their beauty, their seasonal changes, their cooling effects, and their alive-ness. No artificial structure will match that. Worse, an artificial structure will trap heat and pollution at the surface. A leafy roof helps clean the air. Why, why, why would we tear them down for some outsider to come in and put up a piece of “art” that isn’t even original? That is not good stewardship. That is, in my mind, sick.

    Reply

  7. Doesn’t Krutch Park have a big open space by Gay Street? Have the past few years in Knox County politics destroyed our community’s ability to compromise and work toward the common good?

    Reply

  8. Half a million dollars for that? Why not put half a million dollars towards making downtown Nashville and the surrounding area more beautiful. Right now the socioeconomic situation around downtown makes it very unappealing and half a million dollars would go a long way to improving that area.

    Reply

    1. Wow. Typical Knoxville. First of all what the heck does this alien looking statue have anything to do with country music? Answer nothing!! I can only imagine who came up with this stupid idea. I am not a tree hugger by any stretch but to cut down mature trees for this. It would be a laughing matter if it wasn’t serious. If your gonna put up a statue or memorial just shift it away from the trees and while your doing that retain a local artist to actually create something related to our town and country music. Not some foreign sculpture that looks like something ET flew in on.

      Reply

  9. For those with a KNS subscription, here’s an interesting article about the history of this project and what the artists were told (“The finalists were told they weren’t bound by the park’s current moniker, their work didn’t have to relate to country music and it’s likely the spot would get a new name”). They were also told they have a ‘blank slate’. https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/2018/03/23/knoxville-cradle-country-music-park-public-art/452278002/?fbclid=IwAR0Pm1yhEm0RW8RMXkn1DTq_f50rXyFl72UkAwLIyLj0hjsUSXSRtsvL1Eg

    Reply

  10. I am going to attempt to be sincere and kind in these remarks but my snark will come through because this entire kerfuffle has annoyed me to no end, and I’m sure this article will get dozens of opinions anyway and mine will get lost in the current. I will try to just hit main points as I see them.

    First, I consider myself on both sides of this debate as I am a public artist (having painted a few murals in the past in my hometown and currently painting one now in North Knox) and also a fairly radical environmentalist, being the Chair of my neighborhood’s Sustainability and Climate Committee and considering climate change the one primary issue I care about, ‘politically speaking’. Also I think it’s safe to assume the best of folks in this debate and say that no one ‘hates trees’ or ‘hates public art’ as both have value and are needed. The question, then, becomes, sincerely, which specific trees and which specific art have value and merit in any given place at any given time.

    Here is how I see it, and let me start so you know which side I am on: I am 100% for this art going in this location, and the destruction of five ‘mature tree’ doesn’t bother me, because it misses a much bigger issue.

    1) The art is site specific. This art (which you can find ugly; that’s part of art, and of it being public, but is no reason to delay or derail it since it went through a public process and some of us actually think its beautiful and cool as hell) was intended to visually connect that corner of downtown proper with the Old City (hence the overhanging pier) and from what I understand was angled specifically so as to interact with the sunlight in a very context-specific way (how much more involved and connected to nature do you want your art to be?). So just uprooting this art and moving it elsewhere would defeat the purpose of this specific art.

    2) These are not old trees. Calling them mature trees makes them sound decades old. If we were protesting ancient Redwoods it would be one matter. These trees, if they were human, could not even own a driver’s license. They were installed roughly when Obama got elected. New trees of the same kind will grow back just as quickly.

    3) To make this about carbon removal is a red herring. The USDA has a tree carbon calculator which I curiously used to figure out roughly how much carbon these five trees have removed in their lifespan. Perhaps I used it wrong, and I did generalize the size of the trees (though 4 of the 5 are generally the same size) and according to that calculator these trees in the past decade-and-a-half have removed about a ton of carbon. Great, you say, until you realize the average American emits *FOURTEEN TONS* of carbon annually. We need to stop acting like cutting these trees down will be the tipping point in melting the Thwaites Glacier and causing sea levels to rise immediately.

    4) To make this about downtown being hot is a red herring. Yes, trees provide shade and cool a place down. But these trees are so cluttered together the grass below can’t even grow. That’s not a park I, or many, would want to be in. Also, this is not some residential street that would briefly be warmer, it’s a patch of dirt. Also, the size of the new art, plus the preservation of a cluster of four large trees near Gay Street and the trees along Summitt Hill would, based on the angle of the sun in the Summer, provide more than enough shade in the hottest times.

    5) This is lazy environmentalism at its worse. I say points 3 and 4 are red herrings because the reality as I see it – as someone who reads books and watched videos about and stresses about climate change nearly every day of my life – is that, pun intended – people are missing the forest because of the trees. I’m sure folks mean well, but its easy to point to a large tree that’s supposed to be cut down, protest it, have it saved, then pat yourself on the back, tell yourself you care about the environment, and then continue to drive your gas-powered car to your house in the suburbs and fly in a plane to take a vacation and spew carbon in every other mindless way that we as Americans do without actually sacrificing anything or doing anything hard to actually help lower carbon emissions and prevent a climate catastrophe in the next few decades.

    I’m sure there are some folks protesting these trees with sincere concern about climate change, but why fuss over five trees? Why die on this hill? You want to protest? Protest the expansion of suburban development, which mindlessly demolishes thousands of trees every year and locks people into a car dependent life because of low density. Protest a lack of consistent high quality public transit that forces car use. Protest the fact that Summitt Hill is about four lanes too wide and the asphalt alone makes downtown hotter, not to mentioned the emissions from all the cars on it. Protest parking minimums that require impervious lots to be built to house our vehicles. Protest single family zoning, which treats duplexes and fourplexes like the bubonic plague and prevents most of the land in our city from being made ever so slightly denser and building up the needed density for transit to be a viable option. Protest a lack of protected bike lanes. Protest a lot of stuff that *actually* will help us reduce our carbon footprint. But don’t pretend that saving five trees makes us a green city, or yourself an environmentalist. This whole ordeal is why people treat environmentalists as ‘crazy tree huggers’ and don’t want to take us serious about large, systemic changes need to actually do what’s needed for climate change.

    Again, I’m sure it’s been well intended by many, and no one is ‘anti-tree’, but the reality is some trees aren’t important and don’t matter, and this process of this design was public and decided on four years ago, and some people that weren’t civically active then are pissed now and trying to rectify their lack of involvement. Hey, if the trees can be saved, that’s great too, but let’s not treat this like its actually accomplishing anything major if they’re saved. There are far bigger issues we need to spend our time and energy on.

    Reply

    3. The trees are, without doubt, at least two decades old. Possibly three. Age at planting is the open question. The trees’ decades old status can be verified in KGIS. The most valuable thing about these trees is time. You can buy new trees, but you cannot buy time. A well known Chinese proverb suggests the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. I suspect people have rallied around this for being a highly visible project on public property. In contrast to so many tree-destroying projects on private property, about which nothing can seemingly be done. Other communities have had important conversations about the value of trees. Perhaps this is Knoxville’s moment for those same conversations?

      Reply

      1. Not to belabor the point, especially since the trees were saved, but I deeply believe in getting facts as accurate as possible in any discussion, especially on a public forum, and to everything I can see (and by all means if you have different data point me to it), these trees in question are at *most* 15 years old. You can clearly see on Google Maps that they existed in 2007 but were small, and if you look on the KGIS aerial from 2003, they are not there (at least they do not seem to be, because there are no shadows being cast from where they should stand, and there are very clear shadows being cast from other objects nearby).

        Maybe I’m being nit-picky, but to me it’s disingenuous (and literally wrong) for people to have argued that these trees are ‘decades old’ when they are at most one and one half decades old. Saying something is ‘decades old’ implies – at least to me – that it is 30 or 40 years or more old (literally at least 20) and that they have been part of downtown for generations. These trees *seem* to have just been planted in the mid aughts when the road still ran through the park.

        And yes, I understand your point as to people rallying because this is public land and its harder to deal with a private developer tearing down trees, but my previous point is that most people that protested these trees are probably not actually doing much to stop climate change (if they were we would see more change and hear about it on social media and the news) and did this for an easy moral win. Plus, we *can* make change when it comes to large scale tree destruction in the city and county because we live in a democracy and can push our leaders to change the zoning and building codes to mandate more tree preservation and have more compact land use. But that’s not as easy or sexy as ‘save the trees’ in one downtown park so most people clock out and are too lazy to bother. Worse, people think that saving a few trees is enough. It isn’t. Again, no one is anti-tree, but to me this uproar over five trees was at best misplaced anger and energy coming from people that exude no other passion for the environment, especially systematic changes needed to protect it, any other time.

        As an environmentalist, it shows me that most folks seem to miss the big picture and to be honest its been very draining to me and discouraging, and I’ve been very disappointed by the ‘environmentalists’ here in town because of all of this. This 1960s hippie view of the environment as ‘mother nature’ has gotten us nowhere in terms of climate change and this insistance that every tree is precious or sacred or equal with a human life is – to me – madness and what hurts this movement because climate change skeptics and average citizens not motivated to do anything will just see us as ‘tree huggers’ and think that if they stand up for a few trees they have done their job.

        Again, trees are great. Plant more. Save supperrrrr rare or old ones. But it’s not enough, and it’s not the end-all, be-all for the environmentalist movement. We need less beef consumption, we need green concrete, we need more solar panels, we need so much more than we should be pushing culturally and politically if we understand the urgency of the next decade to lower our emissions, and this approach of treating five trees like a holy site is just …. not where our energy should go. I hope that makes sense. Glad they could save some of the trees; more glad this ordeal is over. We have more important things to fight for.

        Reply

  11. Two other things because I’m sure this will be brought up:

    (1) $500,000 for a massive iconic piece of art is *not* a lot. For an individual, yes, but not for a City. The City has been saving up for this little by little in the budget for years, just like you would save for a house or car. Let’s not act like the City exists just to use our tax dollars for housing or police. We want nice things. Nice things cost money. The competition, as well, was open to everyone, but Tennessee state law forbids local artists from receiving preference. I, as a local artist, do think that’s silly, but that’s the law, and the public art committee reviewed the submissions and liked this one best. I would rather have the nicest, most professional artist win then someone less qualified just because they live here. Our city should be forward looking and open enough to promote local artists as well as artists from large cities and other places generally.

    (2) You can have a place honor the idea of something and have the place itself be dedicated to something without having art be directly thematic. There have been art pieces here before that had nothing to do with Country Music. The City will be installing dozens of plaques here marking Country music history. The art doesn’t have to be a literal guitar for God’s sake. Should we nail photos of country musicians to the trees, too? They aren’t themed as is. This entire argument of this sculpture not being ‘country music themed’ appears, to me, to just be an easy way for people to say ‘I think this is ugly art’ without having the courage to just admit it.

    Reply

    1. It would be much better if maybe it remotely had something to do with actual country music. Your average person “which most people are “ will look at this space ship and wander what it is. The vast majority of people are not art critics and don’t look into the symbolism of whatever this statue is supposed to portray and it’s definitely nothing to do with its namesake park. Just change the name of the park if this is going to be the symbol of said park. I can’t say it’s ugly because in the correct frame of mind I am sure it is beautiful to some.IMO it is just a strange move to place it in Country Music park.

      Reply

  12. What “committee” was put together to head up this project?

    First of all, as I see in the post above, the finalists were told the sculpture didn’t have to relate to country music – they were given a blank slate – what’s that about! It’s a Country and Western park – lets stick with the theme!

    Secondly, does anyone on this “committee” have an eye for art? This huge toothpaste colored sculpture is being squeezed onto a tiny piece of land totally inappropriate for the size of the sculpture. A piece of this dimension and size needs a large open space where it can be viewed from close and afar. I agree that World’s Fair Park would compliment the sculpture and it would fit in much better with the lay of the land.

    Without the beautiful trees that currently exist that whole corner would appear cold and harsh and very unwelcoming. Is this what Knoxville wants to project as you travel into town for the first time?

    I do hope the city of Knoxville will take a six (6) month break from placing this sculpture in it’s permanent home and take a good hard look at other location possibilities.

    Reply

    1. Artwork is not fluff, but your childish and hateful name-calling shows that fluff is inside your head instead of a brain.

      Reply

      1. Do you own property? You might have a different opinion if your taxes went up 21% and see that stuff like this is what she’s wanting to spend your money on.

        Reply

        1. This money was set aside in the budget bit-by-bit years ago starting under a different administration. Your property tax rate increased, actually, to make sure we pay competitive wages to our first responders like police and firemen to make sure the city is safe. You can hate the idea of paying taxes, but at least understand where they are going before you complain.

          Reply

          1. I can understand that the wage increase will go right back to the city if they own property within city limits. I don’t hate paying taxes, but I do hate a drastic increase when there is no need for it. For years, the city has been boasting about record tax revenue. Plus, right before this was announced, the County released their appraisals, raising everyone’s tax basis up an average of 40%, in some cases much higher. Mine was close to 80%. Then our incompetent mayor decided to throw salt on everyone’s wounds right after.

  14. As was mentioned in the article -the art sculpture that was chosen is not the problem-it is the very large base that was designed for it to sit on that has claimed a large amount of space in the Parks half acre footprint. We who are fighting for the trees were made aware of this when we asked the City for the design map. Once the map revealed that most of the largest most beneficial trees would be destroyed the conversations began last year. Seems everyone was so focused on what we would get (the sculpture) and they did not take into consideration what we would lose(the trees) in the process. We have advocated for the trees, spoken to Council members, had the trees examined by 2 different Professional Arborist. The trees are healthy -those who would take them down were claiming they were diseased. We have met on the grounds with Public Art Committee leadership and our Urban Forester to verify which trees we would lose. The University of Tennessee along with groups in 17 other cities are studying Urban Heat. Mature trees are a city’s greatest defense against Heat. Once they are gone- they won’t be back. We support planting new trees 100%.Young trees take time and time is what we are short of in the race against overheating. These existing trees are an asset that truly belong to the people and these trees are working to provide benefits right now. The people are speaking up to save the Mature trees not only for their beauty but also for the benefits they provide. These trees are well established in the Park.
    We as rational humans need to work with nature so that Art and Nature can coexist. That will require some compromise- but with all of the stakeholders coming together we can create a beautiful park that we can be proud of for all Knoxvillians.The Cradle of Country Music Park’s History must be included in this new visioning process as well. So there is still work to be done before breaking ground, but if done fairly and equitably it will all be worth waiting for. The resolution is asking for the time to consider the impact of Mature Tree Removal. There are solutions – we must be willing to find them.Well established Mature trees are extremely difficult, almost impossible, to replace especially in an Urban environment. Cities across the country and around the world are having this same conversation.We are not unique in this realization.Mature trees must be saved and cared for and in return they protect us and those who follow us.

    Reply

    1. First off, our mayor is not incompetent. She’s done nothing but good for the city. Second, property taxes are revenue neutral. The value of everyone’s property went up, basically nationwide due to the supply and demand for housing. It is the job of Knox County to reappraise property. They usually do it every 4 years, but because of Covid, it was 5 years this time around. None of us have any control over the prices of our homes and if anybody sold their home now, they would get at least double what it was worth just 5 years ago because there are more people moving here than there are houses/condos for sale. That pushes prices up and in turn, raises the property assessments. Four years from now we will have another assessment at which time the values may increase or decrease depending on the real estate market at the time. If there is a crash and home values go down, then assessments would also be reduced to reflect that. You act like the county appraiser was looking for more tax revenue when that is not the case. Homes must be assessed at their current value by law. If your assessment went up by 80%, then your property was way undervalued and now it is at the correct value. If you don’t want to pay your fair share of property taxes, then sell your home and rent somewhere. Just please stop your complaining and attacking a public servant that was voted in by a majority. It is childish and unbecoming.

      Reply

        1. Or at least reply to the right thread. I’m allowed to attack a public servant if I choose. That’s what Freedom of Speech is all about. I’m even one of the ones who voted for her. I completely looked past her time on the school board because our previous mayor who actually did a good job endorsed her. I’m sure not voting for her the next time around though, that’s for sure. Unless the alternative is someone awful like Mike Chase.

          Reply

  15. The dynamic tension between trees/vegetation and buildings is timeless, so that’s the issue – TIME. A digital, rotational, 3-D variable forecasting model, viewing from all directions as a Google Map-ish street image and including future builds/improvement simulations on the parking lots, etc. is possible. Heck, why not get UT-ORNL to go virtual reality; be a model of model planning . Digital downtown!
    The alternative is to let the past rule the future. Sunk cost, constrained planning horizon, and fragmented decisions will rule the day. Start with a Vision Statement and and move toward it or just go where the money blows. Right now it seems to be blowing from the baseball stadium.

    Reply

  16. > The trees ARE decades old. But more importantly, they are well established and healthy, despite growing in a harsh environment. It will take decades for small saplings, if they can manage to survive, to get to the size of the trees that are slated for removal.

    > Yes, we DO need to do other things to reduce our carbon footprint. But cutting down five, healthy, mature, native, non- invasive trees and putting large amounts of concrete and metal in their place isn’t going to be helpful in dealing with carbon sequestration.

    > The concrete and metal will most definitely absorb heat AND then put it right back out as those structures begin to cool. We shouldn’t compare the shade provided by the proposed sculpture / hardscape to the shade provided by the trees that were/ are slated for removal. Shade trees absorb radiant heat from the sun, too. But they REDUCE the ambient temperature underneath them (through a cooling process known as evapotranspiration). Vegetation is an effective way to reduce urban heat islands.

    Reply

  18. I think it’s an open question whether either preserving or “improving” that tiny bit of park land will do much to help link the two halves of Gay Street.
    Much more important, it seems to me, is to redesign the automobile traffic pattern at that intersection.
    I cross Summit Hill at that point fairly frequently on foot. I am a quick and competent walker, but I am never certain that I’ll make it safely across without getting hit by someone making a turn or running a light. I don’t know what the accident statistics say, but the threat of mayhem at that intersection looms as a deterrent to strengthening the Gay Street connection.
    To go further beyond the data, if the new sculpture is installed and is successful in drawing pedestrian and driver interest, one can reasonably project additional mayhem owing to distracted drivers and pedestrians in the area.

    Reply

  19. We would love to have this piece of sculpture find its home at our 3.5 acres and future home of hundreds of art pieces, LunaVerse Knoxville at 940 Blackstock…

    No trees need be cut down and Pier 865 would have a permanent home beside World’s Fair Park where it could be enjoyed and visited by all in a scene of art and music for many years to come.

    Reply

  20. In addition to the $500,000 for the sculpture, the base will cost an additional $500,000, says Councilman Thomas.

    If we have to have it, why not put it on the S. Knoxville riverside walk. There are only young trees there and it would get visibility, if that’s the point.

    If the idea was to put something in Country Music Park, why in the world wasn’t a piece selected that had something to do with country music?

    Reply

  21. My God
    Our city has people living on the street and literally under the bridge just down the street that crosses james white parkway and this is what we are discussing. Unbelievable.

    Reply

    1. Agreed. Not just under the bridge but all over spreading up 275 up to Merchants and Callahan and large numbers over to Cedar Bluff as well. I’m sure the new sculpture will look and smell lovely with discarded dirty clothes and defecated all around it. It’s hard to enjoy works of art when you’re worried about being panhandled and trying to ignore the stench of urine.

      Reply

  22. I attended design charette held by the committee a few years back. It’s amusing to see that, in the end, they ignored every suggestion made by the public. Good job.

    Reply

  23. While I myself am a practicing visual artist, it seems to me totally irresponsible to destroy trees for any art work. The obvious benefits of trees outweigh the placement of a large object that at best requires maintenance and questionable meaning. Worst is that one of the trees is an elm tree, a most precious species!

    Reply

  24. We should also trust our City Urban Foresters who are trained and certified to make decisions about tree health and care. The City of Knoxville should invest more in our urban forestry department and invest more care in initial tree planting choices and locations (and companies they decide to work with).

    Reply

  25. good heavens what a read!!! musically speaking, I bet Rachmaninoff would be quite happy there as he used to reside down the block. I will say, i loved the pictures of some artists and etcetera that I’ve known for decades standing up for the trees.💗💋

    Reply

  27. Find somewhere else to put it. You could definitely replace “the Whirlwind of Opportunity” on UT’s campus with this sculpture and it would have a much more profound impact. We could use some new art on campus lol

    Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

© 2021 Inside of Knoxville
Site by Robin Easter Design

Discover more from Inside of Knoxville

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading