The Santa Monica Treesavers pretty much sum it up on their website: "It's Unbelievable." How is removing beautiful and effective shade structures supposed to enhance the shopping experience? I'll be curious to see where this goes.

Living in center city Philadelphia I have had much experience with the Gingko tree and let me tell you, they STINK, literally. The tree itself is not the issue, its the fruits that are produced over the summer and fall come winter. When stepped on they actually smell like poop, or a skunk, or both. A street lined with Gingko trees becomes a traitorous path decked with stinky little stink bombs. Step lightly Santa Monica, or its your shoes!

Can't see the stores to shop in from a high-riding SUV with all those trees in the way. Bad for the economy. That sidewalk is wasting a lot of space too.

Sounds like they plan to replace the existing trees with Ginkgo Biloba trees. While the ginkgo (sometimes spelled, gingko) may be small when they first plant them, they will grow quite large (30 feet), larger than the existing trees. Ginkgo's are also a very attractive tree with few faults. They make great parkway trees because they don't heave the surrounding concrete with their roots. However, the ginkgo's canopy will be less dense than the ficus tree. The ginkgo is also a deciduous tree so it might lose it's leaves in the winter, even in Santa Monica. I'm not convinced this is a green issue as much as an historic preservation issue. The ginkgo is a great city tree.

any one have a trash can, I'm feeling sick. Nothing gets me more angered then when I see something as strong, soft and soul warming as a tree in a urban space get destroyed for the sake of "sight lines" thats what is about being able to see that stupid shop sign from across the street.

This is Sick . Sick Sickooo...
We should go and hug the trees ...as Tree Huggers its our duty to protect them....

As a card-carrying treehugger, I do have to defend Santa Monica a bit here. First, they are one of the most environmentally progressive cities in the country, so I doubt they are doing this "just because." I think we should give them a chance to expand on the reasons they are taking the trees down, because I suspect is has much more to do with "internal decay, extensive root pruning, poor canopy structure, [and] damaged canopies" than something about shopping. These trees are huge, have been there for ages, and we have to realistically come to terms with the fact that trees do get old and die. Would you rather leave all the trees there and have some come crashing down in a freak storm (which we DO actually have occasionally)? I guess my concern lies more with the fact that they seem to be planning on taking them all down at the same time, and replacing them will all the same kind of trees. This kind of monoculture means that we’ll be in exactly the same position in 30 or 40 years when all the Ginkos get old and damaged. I wish they would take one or two down at a time, they can’t possibly all be ready to collapse at the same moment. If they did a few every couple of years, it would allow there to be a more natural growth of the trees.
Who knows, maybe I’m just being naïve that any self-respecting person / government entity would just wantonly destroy living things without good cause. Also, I think ficus trees are a little creepy, they have SUCH a dense canopy it’s like walking under a parking structure. Sorry. Also it’s usually pretty cool just two blocks from the beach, and you’re more likely to want to stand in the sun than out of it. You can even see in the photograph: the brightness has been balanced for the tree, everything outside is totally washed out because the shade is so dark.
Not that I’m advocating one side or the other, just trying to make a more balanced representation (Geez Lloyd, you’re always so tough on LA!)

Here in Tempe, AZ we have ficus trees lining Mill Avenue near ASU. The flocks of birds that roost in them cause huge problems by crapping on everyone who tries to walk around in our otherwise pedestrian friendly downtown. I like trees and I like birds, but when you have to dodge a steady barrage of bird bombs, walking just isn't as fun as it should be. The city spent thousands of dollars last year thinning and spraying some kind of bird repellent to try to mitigate the problem, with limited success. Most people agree they should have planted desert trees like palo verdes or something native to the region.
I don't think Gingko's are native to California, but maybe some of these reasons influenced their decision.

I think it is just the female trees that produce the nasty-smellling fruit, not the male.