at the intersection of infrastructure and human needs

…lies this tree! I love this tree and, at least what I’m ascribing to it in terms of how it got that way.

The first interesting aspect of this situation is the equal priority both have been given in access to the right-of-way along the road. In most modern cities or suburbs, I can say with near certainty that this tree would be cut down. Why would a city not do what they have done here? Because the tree’s trunk is growing directly below the wire. The tree will certainly converge back on the wire and ensnare it again, requiring perpetual pruning. Plus, if the tree were to fall either towards or away from the road, it could take the wire with it; the tree forms what is almost a ring around the wire. To a provider of infrastructure, both risks not worth sparing the tree.

Another interesting aspect of this situation is how the tree has adapted to its situation. The tree has grown more “bushy” on both sides of the wire, almost joining again at the top. How often it is pruned, I’m not sure, but this tree seems to have essentially become two trees.

Has the wire or the infrastructure adapted to the presence of the tree? Seemingly no, but maybe when installing this line, the pole to support the wire was put near this tree on purpose. Since the pole lifts the wire up to its highest point (it droops in-between poles), it helps the tree to have the wire higher above it; there’s less chance to have the wire end up resting on the tree.

The tree is also likely spared by the fact that this pole looks to only carry telecom cables. I can’t tell whether the thinner wire second from the top is electrical or not–if so, it would *really* surprise me that this tree was allowed to remain as it is; it’s an easy path to ground. My bet is that there is no electricity on this pole.

An interesting reflection of somebody’s values that you don’t see everyday!

//respond(0)trackback

cisco voip phones

I’m not sure if I’m the only one who finds this funny, but Cisco’s VoIP phones (at least the ones in Banff), say “Are you there?” instead of ringing. I’m not sure if this is a coincidence or intentional, but I read somewhere that “Are you there?” was a common way to answer phones in Victorian days. Along with, “What is wanted?” or “Ahoy, hoy!” But why is Cisco trying to bring those back? What’s wrong with a regular ring?

//respond(1)trackback