The Star: Why suburbs will never have tall trees. ⇒
8 May 2006, lunch time
This is a post from my link log: If you click the title of this post you will be taken the web page I am discussing.
8 May 2006, lunch time
This is a post from my link log: If you click the title of this post you will be taken the web page I am discussing.
We have thirty-five foot trees behind my parents’ house (the subdivision is about 18 years old). Scarborough!
by rishi on May 8 2006, 3:43 pm #
Sometimes I feel sorry for the other suburbs that aren’t Scarborough.
by ramanan on May 8 2006, 5:30 pm #
Strange! I feel the exact same way about other suburbs that aren’t as great as North York, like Scarborough.
by sh!ma on May 8 2006, 7:02 pm #
Earl Haig is in North York, so there is no way in hell North York can be more awesome than Scarborough. QED.
by ramanan on May 8 2006, 7:30 pm #
Trees are overrated. It’s all about concrete/steel skyscrapers.
by Iluvitar on May 8 2006, 7:36 pm #
Scarborough subdivisions have substantial city-owned boulevards relative to new subdivisions. I’ve had to draw many street tree plans for new areas – don’t get me started on the politics…
Oh yeah, Hi!
by sp on May 9 2006, 1:12 pm #
You learn something new everyday. Also, you forgot to end your comment with a “Scarborough!”
by ramanan on May 9 2006, 8:41 pm #