Thanks for sharing TB. I often struggle with these points ,among others, when implementing a design. The systemic problem as I see it is the funding measures required to complete these project. Often they are environmentally driven sources used to correct infrastructural deficiencies where the urban stream meets the man made structures we utilize in our every day lives. (buildings, roads, sidewalks, ballfields, etc)
Additionally, the local governmental liaisons do not understand the environmental goals and demand more of a beautification than a restoration. Ultimately, the projects primary goals are stabilization. These site modifications and field adjustments are negotiated to maintain the stabilization necessary while compromising things like tree height, plant density and species. As can be seen in the photos, it looks pretty and the streambank vegetation is as a shrub garden edged with mulch, etc. What you don't see are the before photos.
And rightfully so. Where there is not enough room for a practical riparian buffer you do what you can to make it look good while protecting the infrastructure.
We have to keep in mind that every stream restoration or rehabilitation/stabilization involves a property owner (with wishes and demands) as well as a funding source with criteria. Often the two do not coincide and compromises are made along the way.
The author is not wrong, but there is more to the story.
