Unfortunately you got someone who forced their own tastes onto you instead of making your vision become reality. The trees you have now are struggling (dead branches aren't supposed to be there) and may not end up being part of the long-term picture. If you like aspen that would be a good choice for a quick cheap grove as if happy there a small number of plants will spread to form a grove of many trunks. However, since it does spread rapidly below ground when so inclined you should probably install some root barriers to keep it out of where it is not wanted, including neighboring property.

Unlike aspen birches do not spread like running bamboo but are also quick-growing pioneer trees with slender and often pale stems good for making grove effects.

The web site of Colorado Cooperative Extension may have a section on tree selection and other topics that you could find useful.

Hi, and thanks. Birches sound good. We were worried about the aspen spreading everywhere, but didn't know of an alternative.

Thanks for your thought on the existing trees. We've already contacted the people who installed them and they are going to come out and look at them, maybe for replacement. We're not sure they installed the irrigation system correctly, and are going to review all that.

Thanks again for your help.

are there zoning regulations requiring a certain amount of lawn (bare) space in front of your house? it looks like you are in a development... just wondering if that was the reason. your view looks like a great one! IMHO a midwestern woods look would not go with the style of the house, but i can understand why you would want it. good luck kren

Yes: It would probably work best to actually have more lawn with less bed space but with an additional bed over to the right (in this view), in front of at least part of the neighbor's house. From this perspective the bed at the front is actually too big and dominating, although maybe from the house the lawn is plenty big.

The main thing that is noticeable at this point is that there is a large area of gravel with hardly any planting, so that the bed looks like a desert with the odd contrast of the lush lawn behind - like a golf course in Arizona.

Garden Design Illustrated by Grant and Grant is a good one for fundamentals like bed and lawn shapes, planting in drifts, character and use of different broad groups of plants like deciduous trees and broad-leaved evergreen shrubs (pretty limited scope for these last for you are but that doesn't matter). Small cheap book reprinted many times and available from used book dealers.

kren_pa, there isn't any requirement for lawn, although the architectural committee has to okay the landscaping when a house is built. Our view to the back is awesome; it's why we bought this lot. The house turned out to be quite a compromise because the lot is so narrow and our budget didn't go as far as we hoped. Here's a couple of pix of our back view.

{{gwi:32615}}

{{gwi:32616}}

bboy, thanks again. The rocks in front of the lawn it measure 50' x 30' deep, so about the same total area as the lawn. Then there's a strip of rock also on the other side of the walk that is 15' or so 30, going back to the house. We have 29 plants in the rock; this doesn't show real well in the pic. I hate the rock, but DH isn't going to be able to see it torn up. The rock-to-flowers-to-woods thing really worries me though. Thanks for the book reference; I'll get it when I go to town today.

Wow, what a view!

Agree that the stones are unfortunate. Sure dont go with a woodsy look. Maybe DH will be more willing to take it out and replace with woodchips once he starts picking leaves out of the stone.

I think a mixture of evergreens and decidious trees and shrubs along both of your side lot lines would be a perfect start to your woodsy lot, without sticking out from your neighbors like a sore thumb. I did that in my yard and it is so beautiful. It looked so sparce and odd at first, but now that everything is 9 yrs old, its full, lush and private; also draws tons of birds and other critters.
Lovely home by the way. Pondy

Yeah, if it were my propterty, the rocks have to go, if you keep your trees and especially if you add more. You'll surely regret the combination for maintenance, plus it looks odd.

Give bit more thought to what you really want once you understand what's going to happen under lots of trees. Roots, no grass, need to mulch and will still have rake up leaves out of your yard every year and will have to weed the grass-less mulched areas to some extent. I haven't been impressed with the "natural mulch" of falling leaves in the front yard--they drift where they want to and leave bare other places, drift up against the house, etc and so you usually need to rake or shred or otherwise deal with lots of leaves on a residential lot. Not saying you have to make it all TIDY, with nary a leaf in sight, but just that I've not been able to just let them all stay where they will and still carry out proper home maintenance and even growth of other plants (in the forest, it's survival of the fittest and not necessarily in the shape you'd like).

It may well work, but I think I'm hearing you may have a kind of fantasy image of a domesticated forest floor. Certainly the gravel is out of place in it. You might do just as well with nicely placed shade tree or 2 and some shrubs.

Have you made a mostly-to-scale sketch of your front yard? That will help you decide where to place trees, which you can sketch in with their expected canopy spreads. It already looks like yours are too close together, but it may just be the problem with evaluating distances from a photo. 30'x 40' seems only big enough for 1 or 2 shade trees plus a few smaller understory shrubs or trees.

frankie, thank you also. It sounds like DH and I have a lot of considering to do. Sounds like we have a problem; I'm sure he won't want to let the rocks go (easy maintenance was the idea, not that he likes rocks), we're in an area where almost no mulch will stay on the ground because of the winds, and I hear what you're saying about a woodsy look and rocks not going together because of maintenance as well as looking odd. I did think we could let a ground cover fill in between the trees, that would stay on the ground, instead of a mulch.

If anyone has any more ideas, I'd love to hear them. We sure don't like it the way it is.

If you include compatible conifers like tree-form junipers there will be less wind as your woodland grows. I'd think that would be part of the appeal of making a woodland garden there, to make the outdoor spaces less windy. Probably wouldn't hurt to shelter that hillside house with trees and shrubs either.

Another one you might like is The Complete Shade Gardener by George Schenk.

bboy, thank you so much for looking at my post again. (In case you come back another time and see this post)I'm not sure I understand your idea of sheltering our house from the wind. The wind comes from the back and we couldn't put junipers there without covering up our view.

Do junipers do more than other trees to cut down on wind? If they'd make the little woodland less windy, that would be nice.

We are thinking hard. I did find Garden Design Illustrated (haven't had time to absorb it yet) and will look at the shade gardening book you just mentioned, bboy.

Thanks again to you and to all for the help you've given us.

I don't have anything to add but wanted to say how beautiful your views are. I hope you enjoy them everyday.