SO, is it the shade or the hitting of i.e. another tree that makes it grow upward? The tree is going to reach toward the light, wherever the light is. Dense trees will inhibit it, yes. Id like to see pics of the over 40 year Dogwoods kept in check, foxearth. You can see that the foliage on the left side of the tree is wider than the right, which is inhibited by a large juniper (Eastern Red Cedar) to the south of it. The dogwood that I haven't a photo of was inhibited by the presence of a nearby pecan and an evergreen oak and nibbled by cattle on the fence side, so it is not a specimen tree, misshapen and spindly. Limbs reach out to the light, and little sassafrases have come up around it. What if I surround the Dogwood on only TWO out of all four sides with trees - will it grow in very wide as a wedge filling in the two open sides, or will the tree remain uniformly in check keeping only as wide as the two obstructed sides (as per trees) keep it? It will grow toward the light. The sides that are not obstructed reach to the light, is my observation here. Trees on two sides generally result in more vigorous growth on the open sides. Growth will also vary with the position of the sun and the density of the trees. If there are trees on two sides and a tall building shading a third side, that will affect growth as well. The size of my trees is irrelevant because of the difference in climate, soil and growing conditions. My young dogwoods of the same age vary in height by several feet, given different siting conditions. Think about the natural growth of a forest. Dogwoods are lovely understory trees, growing with layered limbs in light high shade and adapting to the site. Planted out in the open, they grow more upright and symmetrical. Nell

LISTEN TO ME ... i wasted the first 5 years at my first house.. trying to save.. and deal with.. all the NIGHTMARES the prior owners left me ... and the happiest day of my life.. was the day i removed the last nightmare ... GET RID OF IT ... but with trees.. and a new house.. observe it this year.. and see if your ID is actually correct ... and then make some decisions.. there usually no real hurry with trees.. its not like this one will kill you in your sleep ... and i would NOT invest one cent in paying to have it pruned.. i would save that money for removal .... its obviously been growing like that for a decade or so..no hurry to prune off crossing branches ... so get rid of it.. sooner or later.. though i favor sooner.. say with/in 3 years.. DEPENDING on a proper ID ... ken ps: it really seems.. based on these pix.. that it adds NOTHING to the landscape of the house.. except the suggestion.. to hardcore gardeners.. that it was planted way to close to the house.. is improperly pruned, due to such.. and overly mature ...

i would start trimming it up .. if that is your goal .. and ignore the top ... its sorting itself out.. in tree years ... i would let it ... ken

Again, based on (lots of) experience, for such small, low-growing trees, there's relatively little harm in just leaving it be. We're not going for perfection here-if we were, such matters would always and in every case be dealt with before they get to this point-but just what's reasonable and likely to matter. As such, this doesn't make the cut (buh dum bum) in my opinion. On the other hand, if one or the other rubbing branch can be removed without ruining the plant's structure and aesthetic appeal, then go for it. But just not a big deal either way. Sure, sure, rot can be the result of such wounding, but even there, it's not the kind of wounding that leads to heart rot any time soon. And heart rot is the type of decay that can move upward and downward fairly rapidly in a tree, not surface abrasion like this. +oM