Thanks, Yardvaark, for your response. The lawn tree that's there is a Carolina silverbell. I thought it got to be 15-25 ft or so, but I just looked it up and it's more like 30-40. Yikes! I don't know how long that one's been there, but it's got to be at least 10 years. We just moved in 2 years ago, so I can't be held responsible for the bad pruning (or lack thereof). I did some this past spring (mainly to remove crossing branches, etc.) but I thought it was a smaller tree so I didn't try to raise the canopy. I can work on that, though I might have to get some professional help 'cause I don't want to mess it up. It also needs pruning on top where I can't reach. Especially given how big it could get, I think you're right there isn't really space for another tree on the barn side. I don't want the plantings to start looking too crowded. Your idea for next to the driveway is an interesting one. I thought it might work, but when the hardscaping is redone, that will be part of the new parking area. (A plan is below.) It looks like I will just have to wait on the redbud, unless I can fit it into the bed next to the house - too bad, it's a really good deal! I guess I was also asking for suggestions for the foundation bed. I just don't have a good sense of what to do there. (The bulkhead and off center bay window don't help.) I'll put a closer-up shot of the area in the next post. Right now, it's my 'holding bed' for a lot of perennials I moved from elsewhere. The scraggly rugosa rose at the right corner of the patio is going to get moved in the fall. I am trying to rejuvenate the (also scraggly) boxwoods along the back, which were overcrowded in their previous location. So basically nothing here is permanent. The bed is about 9-10 ft deep. Let me know what you think. Thanks!

Planting distance for long term development is the same as estimated crown spread - no need to make it more complicated. If they all grow 30' wide, plant them 30' apart. One grows 20' wide, another 15' - picture each as a circle that wide on a piece of paper and space accordingly. That's if you are planting a sort of border of shrubby trees. Tree-like specimens with elevated crowns register as accent points in the landscape and should be widely spaced as otherwise a cluttered effect may result. When all the trees are the same kind they can be grouped closely together to form a grove or clump. 'Forest Pansy' does fade in hot weather, so that you end up with only the newest leaves being purple later in the season. One on a Seattle (USDA 8) street had an average crown spread of more than 30' some years ago. Native pretty consistently to hot summer climates only, redbuds need a warm situation with good drainage; many plantings have problems with dieback if not well sited.

All Cercis canadensis have that zigzag, or "geniculating" effect to the branches. I find it a small tree already, so not much interested in a dwarf. There is a variety called 'Forest Pansy' with purple/red leaves that looks interesting. Chinese redbud has stockier trunk and branches, and blooms are more showy, partially because they are born more in clusters than trailing down the lengths of the branches. To my knowlege, they are all hardy here. Raulston has a bunch of different canadensis, but most are different only in flower color, white, pink, purple.

"The absolute only time I propagate patented plants without permission is if I am keeping them to myself." Isn't that similar to, "The only time I steal food from the convenient store is when I'm hungry and plan to eat it myself." Logan, I don't personally care when you propagate patented plants, but you don't seem to understand how the plant patent thing works. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I disagree with many of the contributors to this thread about redbud's ability to straighten themselves out. I have hundreds of redbuds on my farm and have dealt with a number of them in people's landscape. Redbuds VERY FREQUENTLY suffer from damage and breakage due to their poorly formed branch crotch angles. Cercis canadensis is a relatively short-lived species of tree, and, IMO, a contributing factor is its poor branching and growth habit. Ken suggested the possibility of staking the longest/largest branch and I think that is what I would likely do. There's no need to prune off the other branch, at this point. The one staked upright will become the leader and the other branch will naturally slow down. If it's still a problem in a year or so, then you can take action. Right now each of the two branches appear to contain at least one-third, if not more, of the tree's total foliage.