normally, there is not issue with a large tree out in the middle of an open lawn becoming too large so we don't care how big it gets. But as it grows taller, we usually want the bottom of its canopy to act like a ceiling, providing shade and the sense of shelter. However, if that "ceiling" is too low, it becomes not an advantage, but a disadvantage. Does a person look better with a lot of hair covering their face. Usually not. The same is true for a house. When viewed from the street, if lower tree branches cover too much of the view of the house, it doesn't look good. Also, one must always be cognizant of the ultimate size of the tree. When it's 100 feet tall, would one want branches that are 6' off the ground? Another common problem with branches that are too low is that as they grow, they hang further down and become obstructive to actually using or maintaining the yard. Also, too many branches that are too low produce oppressive, gloomy shade... especially when trees are grouped together. Yet another factor is that high ceilings not only feel better in houses, but also outdoors. A low hanging canopy just does not feel as good as a raised one. I don't have enough space or time to convince anyone here in a short message, but start observing and you'll see it's true. I notice that almost everyone prunes trees in REACTION to how they are right now. Never in ANTICIPATION of what they'll be in 3 months or later. It is this reactionary pruning that is a bigger job and costs more. A limb that's 10" in diameter was at one time only 1" in diameter. At 1", it could be safely and easily removed by anyone. At 10" in diameter, it could only be removed by a professional. Just to make the same single cut (to remove the branch) requires about 75 or 80 times the amount of actual cutting work as when the branch was only 1". The limb structure on trees "opens" as it grows because branches grow longer, heavier and they end up hanging down. The same thing will happen with your tree. The branches that begin at 5' ht. on the trunk and now aim up, will eventually hang down. And they will be a whole lot fatter and heavier by then. When that time comes you'll surely want them removed because then they will be obliterating the view of your house, obstructing the use of your yard and producing oppressive shade where grass (or barely anything) could grow. But then the cost of removing them then will be exponentially higher. Today, you could do it yourself with a home depot pole pruner. In ten years, It will cost several hundred dollars for a professional to do it. Then, the cuts that need to heal over will be massive and maybe even look disfiguring. Today, they would be small and heal quickly. Removing branches a little early (in anticipation of what's to come) might at first make it seem like too much trunk is showing relative to the canopy. But in a rapidly short time, as pruning will do, it just causes the tree to grow faster in all the areas that remain... which is mainly the top of the tree. So very quickly, things look back in perfect order again.

Thyme2dig, don't take my comments personally. They are only meant to address your proposal. And, IMO, using hose clamps to attempt to "fix" a broken branch or trunk is completely misguided and has a near-zero chance of working long-term. I hope it works (continues to work) for your tree, but the procedure flies in the face of reason if you consider how trees grow. The wood inside woody plants is dead. It will never every grow back together no matter how you clamp the split together. The ONLY way that the tree has to bind itself back together is if new wood is used to encapsulate the break. For this to have any chance of working on Lyssa's tree, it would require years and years of growth and a significant increase in trunk diameter. As the trunk grows in diameter, the crown of the tree would get larger and heavier. Even in an ideal situation, the area of the break will ALWAYS be much weaker than the rest of the trunk. As the crown grows, more and more stress will be placed on the broken area and chances of failure will increase. When we consider the fact that the trunk will have to put on a significant amount of girth, the deficiency of the hose clamp becomes apparent. If the clamp is tight enough to support the break, circulation in the trees trunk will be cut off and further growth will be impossible. If the clamp is loosened enough to allow growth to occur, it will not sufficiently lock the two sides in place for the outer most (not wood) layers of the trunk to fuse. Also, a loose clamp will likely cause further damage as the tree is moved by wind, rain, pets, etc. Like everyone else above, I think pruning or replacement are the best solutions. I STRONGLY do not suggest trying to save the top of this tree, but, if one was determined to try, there are MUCH better ways to go about it than using hose clamps.

This is why people like me call these "junk trees". Left to their own devices, in many of North America's climate regions, they are usually short lived and very prone to storm damage. I've spent at least 30K in the past 15 years on tree services, largely dealing with these dogs (A. rubrum and A. saccharinum) that were planted or worse, allowed to grow from seedlings, by prior owners.* Probably 40% cleaning up storm damage, and the balance preemptively removing them to avoid future storm damage destroying valuable plants. The sugar maple (A. saccharum) is purported less awful, but I have no experience with them as they don't seem native to my my ecoregion in Maryland. If for some reason people want them in their yards, they should have a plan for very thoughtful pruning at every stage of the tree's development. Something that almost never happens. Maybe at the extremes of their natural ranges like Vermont, there is a case for planting them. Not here. And yet I bet 1/4 of shade trees planted in the Mid-Atlantic or Delmarva are a red maple. As some other threads have recently noted though, the country is becoming so dumbed down, it might be a lucky thing people even understand to plant shade trees anymore LOL. I myself have started to notice this "don't plant anything in a yard, and remove any trees" trend. Or the amusing trend of people cutting down the only nice tree they had in their yard, and leaving crap like red maples! Another thing I've noticed is some kind of dieback becoming more common. Not sure though if it's a disease in every case - sometimes it definitely appears to be - or just generalized stupidity. * not even counting small to mid-sized ones I handled myself, surely saving myself at least 5-6K. The $350 investment in a Stihl back in 2007 was a good one!

Yup, and those nasty things are EXTENSIVELY used in landscaping because they are cheap, fast growing, easy to produce and respond splendidly to being whacked, hacked and sheared to produce topiaries, hedges and small "shade trees" and privacy screens. They will tolerate lack of drainage as well as marshy sites. They create smaller shade trees quite easily and become dense, dark green "balls" by being sheared annually. I had gardening clients who had them as their lawn trees with Wheeler's Dwarf Pittosporum and various ground covers under them. My clients wisely listened and had theirs sheared just as they began to flower each year while their neighbor LOVED the "pretty flowers". Monthly, I spent hours pulling seedlings from all over their yard while the neighbor simply weed whacked his until they became so thick and strong he had to have them professionally removed. They germinate everywhere, like Washingtonia (trash palms), even in the expansion cracks in the sidewalk and any separation between hardscape sections. But, if you live in a newer neighborhood where there is little to no privacy and the yards are postage stamp sized, and you wish shade and privacy, there are few better choices to provide your desires. What makes them undesirable is also what makes them perfect for those uses. They are opportunistic and immortal, unless fed "Vitamin R" or physically yanked out.