i doubt anyone here.. would say it is OK to 'top' a tree by one half

let alone suggest that it should be done to what is probably a 150 to 250 year old oak ...

sounds to me.. that they might be 'harvestable' .. read that.. worth money ... either take them down.. or enjoy them as is ... [the neighbor]

ken

Here is a link that might be useful: for your perusal

Thanks Ken
I'm not really concerned about it, this house is a gorgeous home, probably worth a lot of money
Those trees are within 15 feet of their home, if they ever came down I'm certain one would go through to the ground floor.
They were trimmed and pruned about 25 years ago and never had anything done since then, I know even as much as I love trees, I couldn't live with them that close.

Being oaks, there is probably a greater likelihood of lightening strike than of branch failure. For whatever reason, oaks get more than their share of direct lightening hits. Not that that solves anything! But once again, being oaks, they have significant value both in their present vertical state, and when laying on the ground waiting to be sawed up into, flooring, furniture, etc. So on that basis alone, I'd not recommend any overboard pruning.

+oM

One of the best ways to ensure damage to your home would be to top healthy trees. If you top a 100' tree half way up the tree, chunks of rotten wood and poorly attached new growth are likely to start falling from 50' within a few years. If you want to try that homeowner's insurance out, go hire "Bubba the tree butcher" to come chop the top off of those trees!

Could you do it?

Yes.

Should you do it?

No.

If the trees are really 90-100 feet tall, cutting in half will still mean they are 45-50 feet tall and that's still a risk.

question of philosophy...

since when did we become so paranoid about having trees planted close to buildings.

and I know the issues regarding branch failure, trees falling on the building, insurance, all the rest. but why, for the love of god, is the question posed can they be cut in half rather than, should I hire an arborist to evaluate them to ensure their long term success in the landscape.

among other things, the oresence of trees shading the home can lower summertime energy costs by 50%.

the basic models of evaluation re: real estate appraisals and presence of "landscaping" were initially done with homes that had no trees, and homes that had just two trees. the results were staggering to consider.

I could understand if these trees were willows, cottonwoods, boxelder, or if there were obvious signs of decay, windthrow, etc.

but to begin the conversation in such a way? it's obvious there is no conversation to be had; it's doubtful we speak the same language, even if we use the same words.

"question of philosophy...
since when did we become so paranoid about having trees planted close to buildings."

I blame Ken ;)

super... lol... blame feels good .. lol ..

i will go with this comment: I could understand if these trees were willows, cottonwoods, boxelder, or if there were obvious signs of decay, windthrow, etc.

==>>> but for acorns rattling off the house at harvest.. if i had to have any tree near the house.. it would be oak ...

regardless ... the OP was about topping.. 100+ year old oaks ... and it is simply an esoteric debate ...

lets pretend they are 100 feet tall .. riddle me this batman ... WHY DO THEY NEED TO BE 15 FEET FROM THE HOUSE ...

had they been planted 20 or 30 feet away .. oh so long ago ... they would still shade the house .. and the surrounding lawn ... and when pieces fall off.. the weighted parts would.. presuming gravity is still in force.. fall to the ground.. and hopefully the part that hits the house ... would be significantly less dead weight ...

anyway... OP.. if you want to gauge height.. go put a standard shovel.. which are mostly 6 feet ... against the trunk.. take your digital camera.. and keep stepping back until you can snap the whole tree ... and then use a ruler to multiply out the shovel scale to the whole ...

i also doubt they are 100 feet tall.. a lot of oaks tend to start broadening out.. increasing canopy that way.. rather than going extremely high ... but who knows ..

any chance at some pix of the situation????

ken

They needED to be so close to the house because pre 1960s A/C was new dainty and expensive.

Now we spend more on cable and cell phones.

While cutting uo ash trees I have spent hours thinking "why were these planted so close you dead ppl"!!!!!

Once again, I think this issue has much to do with location :-) Those folks living in the flat, open middle of the country seem to be the most leary of having plants of any substance planted close to a house or other structure - if it's not trees or parts of them falling on houses, it's the roots invading their foundations or lifting the driveways, etc.

Those of us that live in areas that are already heavily populated with sizeable native trees tend to have a bit more cavalier attitude about them. If they are destined to potentially fall and crush your house, exactly how far away does one build from a 100' tall Doug fir given the average suburban lot size? And what about those HOA covenants that require a certain percentage of trees on each lot to remain intact and in place?

Just because a tree is planted close to a structure, it should not necessarily follow that the tree must be removed or somehow significantly diminished in size to prevent disaster. I think it more important to consider the type of tree, any innate hazards it might produce and how it's been maintained. Certainly worth both the investment in the structure and the tree itself to have it evaluated periodically for health, safety and structural soundness.

ken adrian said
i also doubt they are 100 feet tall.. a lot of oaks tend to start broadening out.. increasing canopy that way.. rather than going extremely high ... but who knows ..

any chance at some pix of the situation????

I happen to know what 200ft, 600ft, 800ft, 1000ft,1200ft is.after working at these heights for over 30 years in the construction industry, I do feel qualified to state as such.
I found out about 1/2 ing a large maple tree, had it pruned by Bubba the pruner, 3 years later it had to come down.
I love trees, would never want to harm one of them, however having them 15 feet from my house is not going to happen, these aren't mine, their in the next lot.

Then the bottom line is yes, they probably would survive having one half of themselves removed. But it would still be a terrible thing to do! Like your maple, they would develop numerous new areas of decay and would go from being fine big trees to mutated ones that you would probably want to die.

+oM

Cheer up, never fear: Those oaks are probably going to live longer than you will.

Around here, out in the country, everybody plants trees way away from their house. A ways down in Indianapolis, some older neighborhoods have mature forests around them - how about a 4 foot diameter, 80 foot tall beech 15 feet away from your house?