sebb--we have three choices--to pay a premium for a large tree, to resign oneself to purchasing an older home that already HAS a large tree, or to resign oneself to shrubbery. There isn't any way around it.

Getting a large tree transplanted may be out of your budget, but considering the time, care, and expense involved in caring for and nurturing a large tree, I can't say I think they are "too expensive." My guess is that your giant steel skeleton will be expensive to construct as well. (Though I find the idea appealing and intriguing.)

No use railing against what is. Acceptance is a beautiful thing!

melanie

Haven't really posted on this forum, but I've found several nice-sized, decent looking trees at our HomeDepot landscape supply center. Of course, there are only a few of those stores in a couple of areas, but they have 20' tall trees of various types in the $70-200 range.

My mother ordered a 25' tree for around $500 from a company online. She had to rent backhoe time to plant it, had to have four people to help, but it's a nice tree three years later and she thinks it was worth the money.

As someone who's moved, at least, every five years, I understand your frustration. I recently moved into a house with two disintegrating bradford pears and am hesitant to remove them (they're not endangering the house or anyone else's) because I don't know how long I'll be here to enjoy a smaller tree.

Dilemma; I guess you could make it one. But I find myself on the opposite end of the spectrum in having to have two mature and massive basswoods removed. It's a shame, but both are approaching the 120 year mark and are a clear and present danger. If transplanting trees of some size is expensive, removing them is equally so.

If patience wasn't my strong suit, I'd bite the bullet and put in large(r) specimens. But since patience is my strong suit, I'd look for something reasonably sized and priced and get it planted now so I could start celebrating it's growth process. The more time one spends agonizing over not outliving one's landscaping, the longer it will be before anything put in the ground starts to take off.

No amount of coaxing is going to make a tree mature any faster than it's wont to do. And any frustration might be a little misplaced - I'd be much more annoyed with the developer who may have clear cut a treed parcel to build this little piece of suburbia.

If you plant good sized trees, not huge - ~3" caliper, in ten years you are looking at a very significant tree.It won't be the spreading Chestnut tree with the village smithy under it, but it will be significant. I you buy them two feet tall, as you mentioned, you probably won't get to a 3" caliper in ten years.

A big tree is an investment.It can be an investment in time or an investment in money. Usually it is a combination of the two.

I'd dispute that moving trees is expensive. I can get 20' tall trees moved for about $1,500. If I hire a contractor to supply me with a 3" calliper tree and plant it, it won't be far off from that in price if I have the tree available. The difference in the size and maturity of the tree is well worth it, if you have the money to do it.

You obviously want big trees. The question next is do you value them enough to invest what it takes to have them. That is followed by whether you have the financial resources to afford them.

The reason why this is not discussed is that most of us know this and accept it. If you really value large trees, you will prioritize having them and do the best you can with your resources (time & money) to get them. Planting 2' trees is a weak commitment.

Both of these photos are taken 2 years after installation with trees bought right out of a nursery yard.

{{gwi:49766}}
Everything on this side of the split rail fence.

{{gwi:49767}}

Now these are not 120 year old Olmstead parks, but these trees are reasonable significant and will be quite large in ten years. These folks valued bigger trees, had the financial resources, and invested in them. They could get trees twice the size or bigger, if they want to spend the money. These trees are in bigger nurseries and are there because people buy them. They are available.

I'm not sure you're going to find a lot of sympathy for your dilemma because I don't believe many share it. As others have pointed out, large trees are readily available for those who prefer more instant gratification, but as a seller of trees, I find scores more ready to invest the time to nurture a smaller tree on to maturity. There is something very satisfying about planting a juvenile tree to mark some event and watching its progress through the seasons and years and there are a great many out there willing to do so.

The gardening/landscaping demographic is changing. Large expansive gardens are becoming a thing of the past and lot sizes are shrinking. Trees that have the growth potential to become large are in far less demand than those that attain a more modest size, more in scale with the size of the property in which they will be residing. 5-6 years is not too long to see these less imposing types of trees attain a reasonable size; in 10-12 years you have a significant addition to the landscape.

I think if you look or even strive for "instant landscaping" you will continue to be frustrated and disappointed. The exercise of landscaping is a study in time management - a brand new landscape filled with larger, specimen trees and shrubs still lacks the character that developes over time as the garden "ages" and matures. It is just in the nature of plants and of gardening to be so.

One plants a tree with an eye on the future, not for instant gratification. That said, there are quite a few trees that will look great in 5-10 years. Never the same as a mature species, but nice. I think a good rule of thumb is to plant some trees that look good both small and when they get large, mixed in with some of the slower growing varieties.

I bought a less than one inch crabapple stub from an online nursery. It languished in a pot for a whole year, including a hot summer and cold winter. I finally took pity on it and planted it in my garden, expecting it to funcion eventually as a shrub at best. Now, two years later, it is the tallest tree in my yard with a 3 inch trunk. So even with some small trees, 5-10 years is not out of the question for a tree to get to a nice size. For those with the money, there are some options that offer more immediate gratification.

I still think planting trees is one of the most human, soul enhancing of activities. Slow down, hope for the future, that's the message trees give us!

For a nice kids book on this theme, check out "Just a Dream" by Chris VanAllsburg.

In my neighborhood, every home has the fast-growing, shade producing trash tree Arizona Ash. People think they're great until we get one of our infamous thunderstorms and you wake up in the morning with tree limbs everywhere. There's a trade-off for fast-growing trees--WEAK WOOD.

I try to go for the moderate growers like Monterey oaks for shade. they're stronger, better trees, and you'll see growth in your lifetime. Don't settle for trashy weak trees; you'll not only have to replace them at some point, you could also be putting your house at risk for falling limbs.

Nevertheless this is a good subject. I remember the thrill of returning to an 8 foot high beech hedge that I planted when it looked like a double line of sticks. There was something spiritual about the experience, there is something spiritual about the experience of growth especially nowadays with the 'here today gone tomorrow' attitude that seems prevalent. Landscaping a private garden is concerned with a microcosm and there is still a bigger story out there. My son recently drove down the coast from Seattle to California and here there are trees like we don't get in England. My point is, I guess, that you don't have to own a tree to enjoy it. I also question what exactly a human need for cover is.

I don't know that I necessarily agree that there are no trees that can look good, if not mature in a 5 to 8 year time span. Certainly I can think of a dozen right off the bat that would do so here in the San Francisco Bay Area. And not all fast growing trees are trash trees, the mighty Coast Redwood, Sequoia sempervirens is both fast and long lived and lasting, and while a 10 year old Redwood will look nothing like a 1000 year old one, it is still an impressive figure in the landscape at 10 years of age, and perhaps already 45 feet tall.

I have also planted trees such as Lemon Gum Eucalyptus that are already 30 foot tall at 3 years out, and look beautiful as a small grove. Again, they are still nothing like their full size of 60 to 90 feet tall, but they do take on adult characteristics and size at a very rapid rate.

In any landscape, I think that the design should incorporate trees that will give some immediate effect as well as thinking of how they will mature and impact the landscape a 100 years from now. Here in California it is also entirely possible to design and plant with instantly mature specimen trees that might already be 40 feet tall by across, if one has the money. Palms are particularly suited to this type of design, and the Embarcadero waterfront Canary Island Date Palm plantings in downtown San Francisco are one example of an instant mature landscape using trees/palms.

For someone who is at an age that they don't want to plant slow growing trees, this can seem abit selfish; as we are not planting just for ourselves, but for the entire community when we plant trees.

Thanks for the replies everyone. I have a question for bahia- do you think if you'd pruned and bonsai-ed those Lemon Gums as they grew they might look semi mature by now? I ask because it seems like eucalyptii could have the potential to look gnarled, twisted and cool even if they're skinny and young, like those high canopy trees we always see emerging from the jungle. Is is really 30ft in 3 years? were they planted from seed?

I can only offer a story/lesson told to me some forty years ago by an old high school sweetheart.

My girlfriend's grandmother, in her eighties, was taking a terrible ribbing from friends, neighbors and relatives because she had just planted a small 'King Crimson' maple tree in her front yard. They all said, "Mary ... why at your age ... are you planting that little tree you are never going to live long enough to enjoy any shade from?"

Her grandmother would just listen and smile. When the ribbing finally subsided, she would wisely reply with words I have fondly remembered all these years. "But you don't understand... The fun is in watching it grow.

IronBelly
... still learning.

I LOVE that story, IronBelly. Thank you!

It would strike me as the height of ridiculousness to attempt to bonsai any type of Eucalyptus tree, let alone the E. citriodora I mentioned. Number one, bonsai is not suited to fast growing plants, the pruning would be never ending. Number two, why would I try to keep a tree at 30 feet that I actually want to reach its full size? And yes, these trees have actually put on 10 feet of growth every year since planting out from 7 foot tall 5 gallon sized saplings. The fast growth desired was intentional, to try and quickly replace the loss of a 100 year old Monterey Pine in the same spot that was dying and diseased, and needed to be removed. This species of Eucalyptus was selected because it stays relatively narrow, is not densely shading or aggressively surface rooting, and the thin smooth white trunks are an architectural element in their own right. The lemon scent on a warm day and shimmering glossy foliage is just a bonus. The client would have just as easily been persuaded to pay a small fortune for one replacement specimen tree such as a 96 inch box Blue Atlas Cedar, but I persuaded him that in 5 to 10 years time I could have decent sized trees,(at far less cost) in this spot that would fit in with the other remaining 100 year old established Norfolk Island Pine and Canary Island Date Palms also on the property. I have had to carefully prune and thin them several times a year to keep them from being too top heavy for the roots, as they are planted right next to the San Francisco Bay which generates regular gusty winds every afternoon. As many Eucalptus don't develop a central leader, and are prone to having narrow branch angles and codominant verticals, I felt it was important to get these trees off to a good start by shaping and pruning to encourage good branch structure that will stand up to the constant winds. At this point they are on their own, as I don't care to be attempting to prune new growth 30 feet up in the air using an extension pole saw. Of the group of 6 trees, there was one which developed a split trunk, and I elected to cut it to the ground and regrow new multiple trunks; in another 3 years it won't be evident that it started anew with a 30 foot handicap...

The next step in this estate garden will be to eliminate the crap Bradford Pears planted as an allee with 10 foot on center spacing that are way out of scale with the garden and create too much shade. I expect to replant with some specimen sized King Palms(Archontophoenix cunninghamiana) at the same spacing and locations to create an allee that allows more visibility of the house facade and Edwardian detailing, and better reflects the adventurous sense of tree plantings that the original landscaping entailed, when Norfolk Island Pines were a recently introduced novelty tree, along with the Canary Island Date Palms. At this time, they are towering landmarks for the neighborhood, as well as providing habitat for the resident eagle, and can be seen from several miles away. I hope the Lemon Gum Eucalyptus and King Palms will be equally beloved landmarks for the next 50 years in the neighborhood, and represent a fresh take for a rather formal Edwardian garden with lots of formal boxwood hedges and lawns, but updated with subtropicals and lots of bromeliads and wild succulents...

I guess I have an advantage. I live where most all large tracts are forest. From almost any location I think I can find a land owner that would let me take 20 trees from his thousands for something like $500. The land owner will never miss them and the $500 is like found money.

A few years back I was building a parking lot with extended landscaping down the road a ways. I hired a guy with a tree spade for $700 a day. Possible because all I'm asking is for him to bring the spade and run it, no time spent finding or selecting trees, no particular number to do, and no guarantee they will survive.

In two days we moved 23 trees, 18 pines, 5 oaks. The pines where 14-18 ft with 5" trunks. the oaks were a bit smaller. Cost was around $100 per tree.

You couldn't do $100 trees for a homeowner needing 3 or 4. But even if the cost goes to $300 a tree, it's still affordable.

I am sure glad that the generations before us didn't decide not to plant the beautiful Beech, Oak, Maple, and many more trees that adorn our ever-growing landscapes today. My childhood adventures in the magical forts within massive trees would not fill my heart today if they weren't there yesterday.
Thank you for sharing your situation because it made me stop and remember my childhood spirit.
Ally

"the dilemma of having to wait at least 30 years for any tree on this planet to look somewhat decent."

There is just something plain wrong about this thought. A tree can be beautiful at any stage of its life, way beyond decent. Size and ruggedness isn't everything. You need a new universal standard of arboreal beauty.

amili

I think one thing that we are experiencing is a much greater use of clear-cutting (or whatever you call it) of neighborhood developments and also, well, yes, you can choose (at least sometimes) whether it's more important to you to buy a new home in a new development or buy an older home that's got a 10 or more year start on its trees. Also, lots are so small in many cases now, that they are not suitable for really large trees.

Many of the old neighborhoods in the city of my youth had fairly large lots, though modest ranch houses, and were developed while preserving several mature trees per lot--oaks, pines. Then the homeowners planted additional things. My parents bought a house that was perhaps only 10 yrs old but had oaks 18-30" in diameter. So these had been preserved and were a key attraction to folks who bought in that neighborhood.

I'm now in mid-life in my second purchased home and only a few years ago finally "got it"--that I really do like a more mature landscape, that my midlife move might have been the best chance for that, and that I might have shopped more diligently for that and then done home remodelling rather than trying to build up a mature landscape, because my next move might require other considerations.

However, my current "get up my nerve" project is to either, by my own devices using a nearby tree farm that features tree spade and planting largish specimens, or by hiring some LA help to get me off my rump, to add some fairly large tree specimens (including smallish ornamental tree species, but not 2' specimens) to my corner lot and then to enjoy that ambience right away.

Why spend the time complaining about something that is obvious and can't be changed?
And I agree that you should change your definition of arboreal beauty, (nice phrase).

SEbb, I think your diatribe was fine, insofar as you are asking about why doesn't that figure more in the discussions of landscaping, and it seems fair to have more discussion of, "hmm, really nice trees are great; if you want them in just a few years, you either need to shop for a home that already has trees, or consider budgeting for big specimens."

So one thing is, new gardeners are not experienced in growth rates of anything, and then may not even be aware of trees available for transplanting, outside of W-M and HD. Second, part of this stems from the continual "don't want to spend much $$" that is part of most discussions, even when clearly the homeowner has put quite a lot of $$ into the house and other possessions. So, I know plenty of people who will plop down for a big mortgage, nice cars, dinners out and then say, OMIG, $500 for a tree, are you kidding, what can I do that's fast and cheap?

I think that younger people and new home-buyers and -owners can learn a lot from the forum about what to aim for in their current and future homes and landscape budgets, and whether to grow it, buy it now or buy it in another home. There is a lot of discussion about that, but not as much aimed at the "maturity factor" per se--discussions are usually aimed more at the $$ investment factor (which is not always the same thing). So one person might decide to budget carefully for a year or 2 for a big tree, and someone else might decide, for example, to plant a small tree (for the long-term and because, you never know--you might end up there for 20 yrs!) and plan that for their next home, they don't want to repeat that, so they will specifically shop for a home with mature trees.

I see far less clear cut neighborhoods. I can tell you from working as a person making subdivisions, cutting trees and doing excessive grading (which means cutting trees) is something that no one wants to do more than necessary. It equals expense.

The trees have to be cut and disposed of, the open areas have to be stabilized, and cleared lots are less desired by the people you are trying to sell to. There are also way more environmentally driven regulations that limit disturbance in many cases and even developers have a greater respect for ecology whether that is economically driven or emotionally driven does not really matter.

The times that I see the most excesses in cutting and grading is with affordable housing. It forces density which forces more even grading for parking, septic systems, access, and drainage areas. In other words, the effort to help the less fortunate requires much more manipulation of the property which means cutting off more of the vegetation. Market rate homes are generally have much less clearing.

Around here (close-in suburb of Seattle) we see loads of clearcutting with new subdivisions and redevelopment. I live in a tear-down neighborhood (the value is in the land!, according to the real estate jargon). The quest for square footage inside the house means covering city lots with big houses, usually twice the size of those they replace. I watched the progress of one where they tried to protect mature sourwood trees for months during construction, only to see them disappear one day. As replacements they are certain to get a full ration of arborvitae. Snooze. That's the instant landscaping we get around here, and maybe throw in a Leyland cypress for good measure.

As an aside, I took an arboriculture class last winter and the instructor cited a study that showed a building site that was clearcut and then replanted had more successful trees over time than one where existing trees were saved and construction equipment worked around them. Heavy equipment and trees don't mix, which probably explains the loss of the sourwoods down the block. I have to wonder what our future looks like here in the land of 100 foot conifers.

From a regional perspective, I have to agree with digdig - clear cutting is de rigeur here. Just a mile or so north of my nursery, they have only just recently moved in the heavy equipment and leveled the landscape of a lot of older growth conifers and all other trees within a week in prep for a new development. And that's just one of dozens of similar situations in the near vicinity. Buildable land close to large metropolitan areas is at a premium and it is not just a typical suburban development they have in mind but high density SFR's - zero lot lines and cluster homes. Or townhouses. Yards or gardens as we 'older folks' have come to know them are a thing of the past. There is little concern for maintaining any kind of mature tree nor is there room to plant one that would come close to approximating the size of those removed. One has to move pretty far out into the country to find reasonably sized lots and even that is getting harder and harder to accomplish. Developments are springing up well outside of the 'burbs and saving established trees does not seem to be a priority at all. In fact, I watched as they fed giant hunks of Doug firs and bigleaf maples into the biggest behemoth chipper/shredder I have ever seen, producing a mountain of shredded trees that they then bulldozed over the property.

Pretty sad situation, if you ask me.

It sounds like the sheer density and size of coniferous forests in urban areas like Seattle actually work against the preservation of these trees, and of course it is a well known fact that thinning out large mature conifers can leave the remaining trees more prone to windthrow in storms. This may be one situation where the types of trees more likely to be encountered in a California situation have a greater chance of being preserved. In fact, there are pretty strong regulations on the books in most SF Bay Area communities that require the protection of existing trees within new developments, or even during remodeling/expansion projects on single family homes.

There is also more thought given to preserving groups of trees, especially when they are oak woodland species, to ensure better odds of saving them. It probably helps that new subdivisions here are more likely to have sanitary sewers and storm drains than septic tank fields and retention ponds, and this limits the amount of grading necessary.

In areas of California where strong tree preservation ordinances don't exist, it is less likely that any trees will be retained, as developers find it cheaper to bulldoze and resculpt all the terrain rather than work around existing trees. I see both types of development happening here locally, but the older urban areas that are dealing with infill development, or the closer in new suburban developments tend to have the strongest tree preservation ordinances.

Large instant trees will never be cost effective in any new development, and in fact are generally not as effective as long term landscaping solutions as planting out young trees. The younger trees will catch up to the specimens within a 10 to 15 year period in most cases, and are a far better value to most people.

Hmmmm. Seattle is a city that is known as an area full with back to nature, earthy-crunchy types for lack of better words. It would not seem like a place that regulations would allow for negative effects to the environment through development.

My belief is that there is a sensible reason for this. That is to promote high density in some areas and deter development in others. Severe work is done on small areas to preserve the large.

In some areas there is 2 acre lot zoning, That means that every time a house is built 2 acres is attached to each house. Build 50 houses and 100 acres is consumed. In Seattle, it might be possible that they put those 50 houses on 12 acres close to infrastructure instead of sprawling out over many acres of rural land.

Sometimes it makes sense to devastate a small area in order to save a greater resource - the large urban tree vs. the large forest near the city.

You can replace the tree in time, but you'll never reclaim that forest.

Good points, Laag. It drives me (and dh) crazy that around here, the Powers That Be tend to try and slow down development by mandating larger and larger lots, with larger and larger homes, when it is SUCH an inefficient way to develop. The county zoning ordinance does give a nod to cluster developments, but in general, the school districts get terrified by any suggestion of density.

Sigh.

This is only somewhat related, but since my sister emailed me the story below this morning, I will share it with you - about the hazards of re-foresting as a method of supposedly slowing down global warming.

Here is a link that might be useful: Audobon article on re-foresting

Never having read anything against planting trees and reforesting (just wasn't paying attention?) I find this a startling article. Is it all so? The Audubon Society has credibility as far as I ever knew.

Is this article alarmist or rational? Educate me.

Maro

Gardengal48 nailed it when she said "nor is there room to plant one that would come close to approximating the size of those removed." That is our dilemma here--the big trees come out, the structure(s) covers far more of the lot than the old one did (in the case of redevelopment), so the homeowner gets small things that will always be small because there is simply no room to grow a tree when you have six foot setbacks. The japanese maple biz is booming here.

Maro -

Keeping in mind that I'm not any sort of landscape professional, the parts about reforesting naturally after fires for instance sound exactly right to me. I remember visiting Yellowstone and learning about how forests have these huge cycles where certain seeds only sprout after the intense heat of a forest fire (fireweed is a really cool wildflower, btw), and that when people interfere with the natural cycle, we end up with more devestating fires.

I haven't heard about the reforestation companies before this, but if they are in fact planting non-native trees in vast quantities at once, it seems like it makes sense that it would make problems as far as water supplies (for instance).

I'm not going to start on the carbon part - I don't have the scientific background to judge that part. But, I think it is important to try and figure out if proposed solutions are causing more problems.

GREAT Audubon article. Tree idolatry is getting to be a severe threat to civilized society. I'm currently at war with neighbours over their humungoid Chamaecyparis lawsoniana 'Erecta Viridis' which dominates both our tiny properties (and is closer to our house than to theirs) and which I want removed. The neighbours can barely tell a tomato from a tulip but they "know" trees are good to the extent that they remain splendidly oblivious of the fact that trying to steward one on someone else's property is rather unneighbourly.

And Sebb, I will have to claim credit for having made a comment to the effect of your OP, but I think it's scrolled off the bottom of the forum by now. Yes, time is a variable you have to work with in gardening, whether you grow alpines or trees. Actually, I think it works thusly: you plant alpines and trees at the same time, and first you enjoy the alpines, and then you enjoy the tree!

KarinL

We are building a new home after losing ours to Katrina. The lot is a blank canvas. The few trees that were remaining were just overgrown weeds, so those were dug up. The landscaper presented his plan yesterday - and the price kind of shocked us, only because we've never had to pay for landscaping a new yard before, especially with new trees. So, yes, we are paying more for the more mature trees and shrubs. We're both 57 years old and don't have to worry about when the oak tree's roots buckle the sidewalks (ha) - it will be somebody else's problem by then. For now, we're just excited about being in a house again and looking out at our yard, that I know will be beautiful. (And yes, highly elevated.....)

I love landscaping and currently I am looking forward to add the Waterfall Fountain(http://www.shopatshowcaseus.com/waterfountain.html) to my garden which I believe would add to the Garden's beauty. Does anyone have any idea if this product comes with only 6-8 pebbles as shown in the picture. If indeed it is, then I can get a few from the sea shore when I go there across the weekend.

Awaiting a reply

Regards,
Derek

well I had incidentally brought the product on the same site (www.shopatshowcaseus.com). It is an awesome product However if you are looking to increase the number of pebbles in the fountain, collecting a few at the seashore side will certainly help

the last 2 posts are undisguised ads, in case it wasn't completely obvious.