Anne Frank Tree down

Are there any before pictures?

Was the iron work anchored with footings? It looks like all it was doing was propping.

And...how could the tree have so much decay and still be left with such size?

What is the significance of the tree? Does it play into AF's story or was it 'just' a large tree at the house?

http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/08/23/historic-tree-with-diary-of-anne-frank-ties-felled-by-storm/

The structure:

http://vimeo.com/14083013

Pruning the tree...with crane:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un4j6XO70cM
 
Hé Tom,

First question must be answered by: probably.

Second: Yes

Third: Loads and loads of tree technicians have assessed the tree and all except for a few came to the conclusion that the tree had to be taken down or at least been reduced in a very drastic manner. So who do you listen to when you are a complete thickhead? That's right. To the ones that say they can safe it.
This tree was infected by Ganoderma beyond the point of rescue.
We have discussed this tree here on the Buzz before but for some reason I can't find these threads any more.

Fourth: It's behind the house and Anne mentioned the tree a couple of times in her diary.
 
Looks like they knew they were fighting a losing battle, but given the historical significance of the tree, wanted to exhaust every possibility to retain it. It seems that all parties came to an informed decision, which was executed. When the tree failed, it damaged a couple gardens, and a wall. No buildings or persons were injured or damaged, and they got another three years out of the tree.

Clients consult with arborists, and, knowing the risks, make an informed decision to retain an historically significant tree. The tree lasts another three years, and when it fails, the site sustains no significant damage.

On the whole, it sounds like a success to me.
 
The tree was already a "total loss" three years ago. To keep the tree in it's upright position no matter what, a construction was made to keep it in that upright position. The whole construction was made of a steel frame and three underground anchors. The steel frame is still completely in it's original form and even fixed onto the tree.
Today's resurge led to the conclusion that the welds that where made to connect the top and the bottom three pieces where, how shall I put it nicely, #%*%$###%****%$# crap?

I know for sure that the the welder has sleepless nights right now and that the construction engineer wonders why he didn't go for the bolted version and regular inspections.
 
I also agree with the interpretation by cerviarborist of what was intended by those who committed their time and resources to the retention project.

I suspect (and expect) that the documentation provided to oourt was less emotional and more constrained by a list of limitations than some of the PR info published on campaign websites.

Thanks to Wolter for clearing the likely cause of the failure in the support frame, I could not work out why they had not installed the screw piles since they were in the original design. Had it stood up and performed according to its design intent then perhaps we would be discussing the wonders of modern engineering.

I am sad the tree has collapsed, but I am glad damage was minimal and noone was injured....other than as Wolter points out the welder and his company might be having some sleepless nights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom