Why did Kortrijk choose a 114-year-old plane as its most beautiful tree?

A 114-year-old plane tree on Sint-Amandsplein in Kortrijk

Place

Kortrijk

West Flemish city where the tree election was held and the tree masterplan applies.

Why it matters

West Flemish city where the tree election was held and the tree masterplan applies.

About

Kortrijk, sometimes known in English as Courtrai or Courtray, is a Belgian city and municipality in the Flemish province of West Flanders.

Official site ↗View source record ↗

The official result published through the regional Leiedal press centre gives the total as 475 votes. Het Nieuwsblad

Organisation

Het Nieuwsblad

Newspaper that reported the result and a vote total exceeding 500.

Why it matters

Newspaper that reported the result and a vote total exceeding 500.

About

Het Nieuwsblad is a Flemish newspaper that mainly focuses on "a broad view" regarding politics, culture, economics, lifestyle, society and sports.

Official site ↗View source record ↗

At nearly 30 metres high, the winner is neither the tallest nor the oldest finalist. Het Nieuwsblad reported that the tree is 114 years old, while the oldest candidate was a 140-year-old plane in Groeningepark. The field also included trees in Rollegem, Marke, Bissegem, Aalbeke and several Kortrijk neighbourhoods, ranging from a weeping beech and a swamp oak to sugar maples and a Caucasian wingnut.

The result is primarily a story about place and public affection. The plane dominates Sint-Amandsplein visually, and its long life makes it a fixed point in a neighbourhood that has changed around it. Groen Kortrijk’s Bert Van Dierdonck said the winner appeared to be the tree with which the largest number of residents felt a strong connection. That interpretation is plausible, although the voluntary online poll was not designed to measure citywide opinion scientifically.

The contest was also political advocacy. Groen Kortrijk organised it to direct attention towards what it calls “future trees”: specimens given enough soil, water, protection and crown space to reach maturity. The party argues that mature trees should be treated as infrastructure because they provide shade, retain rainwater, capture some airborne pollution and support biodiversity. Those claims are broadly consistent with Kortrijk’s own tree masterplan

That is where the economic dimension begins. Kortrijk’s administration says a mature urban tree in Flanders can quickly be valued at about €25,000, compared with a young replacement that may need decades to develop a similar canopy. This is an indicative appraisal rather than a sale price or a specific valuation of the Sint-Amandsplein plane. It nevertheless illustrates why damage caused by excavation, groundwater pumping, vehicle impacts or poorly managed construction can impose a lasting cost on a municipality.

Kortrijk is testing that proposition through CirculariTREE

The plane already has a recognised role in municipal policy. When Kortrijk presented its 20-year tree masterplan in June 2024, the city cited the Sint-Amandsplein specimen as an example of a tree capable of living beyond a century. Its crown projection was measured at 216 square metres. The plan, developed with VIVES University of Applied Sciences, is intended to help more trees grow old through better planting choices, larger unsealed root zones, inventories and neighbourhood-level monitoring.

The city adapted the widely used 3-30-300 planning rule to local conditions. Kortrijk’s plan envisages, among other goals, three trees visible from homes and accessible green space nearby. For the 30% component, the municipality set a 2042 neighbourhood objective combining at least 15% tree-canopy cover with 30% lower vegetation such as grass and planting beds. Groen Kortrijk argues that this adaptation is less ambitious than a straightforward target of 30% canopy cover and wants mature trees to receive stronger protection in planning decisions.

That difference matters because greenery is not cost-free or conflict-free. Large trees require inspections, pruning, adequate underground space and protection during road or utility works. Their roots can lift paving, while dense crowns can reduce daylight or create maintenance complaints. Kortrijk’s masterplan acknowledges those tensions and says reports of serious nuisance, including significant loss of light or damaged surfacing, should be assessed through a standard procedure rather than dismissed.

For households and businesses around Sint-Amandsplein, the practical benefit is highly local: shade can make a square, pavement or terrace more usable during hot weather, while an attractive public realm can support footfall and neighbourhood appeal. Those effects should not be converted into a precise boost to property prices or retail turnover without local evidence. The defensible conclusion is narrower: removing a healthy mature tree would sacrifice services that cannot be recreated simply by planting a sapling nearby.

The broader lesson is that urban nature is increasingly entering the same accounting conversation as roads, drains and buildings. Municipalities must decide not only how many trees to plant but how many survive long enough to become valuable. The Sint-Amandsplein vote has no legal force and creates no new protection by itself, yet it gives residents and planners a visible example against which future choices can be judged.

Attention now shifts from the title to implementation. Kortrijk must continue its tree inventory, prepare neighbourhood tree passports and measure progress towards its 2042 goals. The decisive questions will arise when mature trees conflict with construction, mobility or utility projects: whether officials quantify the value at risk, require workable protection and explain any removal transparently. It is not yet known whether the winning plane will receive a formal designation, additional maintenance measures or protection beyond the rules already applying to it.