No, not in a 4' x 20' bed. Alberta Conifers will get too fat in my opinion. You need a more conical and narrow tree or shrub. Talk to your local Garden Center about what grows best in your area and tell them the story. They should be able to give you a handful of options. Thanks!

Rick, I understand completely where you are coming from. I have very large gardens and spent a couple years mulching it all. Now they all need it again and I'm wondering if I will move forward with all that mulch again. First, have you checked the following places for cheaper mulch, the city, any of the tree removing companies? I have a tree removing company that will come out and dump one of their large trucks of mulch for $42. You are right, it does not go far. I did what you've come to the conclusion of. I worked one bed at a time, mulched it, planted it up and then moved on to another bed. I think that is a terrific plan, if it were me, I would not waste the amount of time it is going to take you to place ground covers in all your beds, it is GOING to be more work. They do still get weeds under the plants and especially because it takes 4 or 5 years to get any real growth on them. Regarding your method of digging in your grass. I'm a little worried about that because you don't want grass to grow up through your conifers. Grass roots are pretty aggressive. I have clay soil too, when I started I hoed my gardens and seriously broke hoes from the cement the rain created (this was before I learned about mulch). Here is a cheap suggestion for you. It may not look as nice but it was very cost effective for me and a great way to get started when I was still spending TONS of money on plants to fill in my large gardens...Take your grass clippings and use them as mulch. Put it on real thick and that will also mat down during rains and assist in weed control AND most importantly it provides wonderful tilth to your clay soil. Also, during the Fall, I collected tons and tons of leaves and placed a thick layer of them on my gardens too. I don't know about your area, but in town they people will rake or mow and place their bags of leaves and grass the curb, I would come buy (in the cover of darkness because I was a chicken) with a pickup and trailer fill it up and spread it on my gardens. People would tell me if they used weed killer it would kill my plants, I never lost one plant. Also, they say you should chop the leaves up but I did not do that it worked so well for me. Once you are no longer buying the number of plants you are now starting out, then you can concentrate on purchasing wood chips and come back around and place wood chips over your grass/leaves. I think you are doing an awesome job making sure you know where all your beds will be, how they will meander around your yard. If I were you, I would just keep mowing the beds as you currently are until you get one bed at a time done and start using the free mulch you already have on your property :). I think you are going to have one beautiful yard once everything grows. Keep moving along, I love how you are so forward thinking and asking those questions up front. I wish I had done that as I would have eliminated a LOT of mistakes. Good luck.

The person who criticized my posts for being too complicated, better just stop now. I guess it helps to remember the zones are 'USDA', which is the US department of agriculture and really has nothing to do with ornamental plants. Nein. Ornamental plants ARE part of the USDA's mission. That's why the National Arboretum is under their aegis. Remember wholesale nurseries definitely are a form of agriculture. The USDA zone system gives the barest measure of whether a plant can survive in a given area. Obviously, something hardy only in zone 10 cannot survive in zone 6. Beyond that, there are many other factors. The latest revised USDA zone map seems very accurate to me. I know of gardens along the Delaware river in NJ that really do seem like zn 7b. But it took a ridiculously long time to come out...considering the overall crunching of data probably took a few hours on a high perf. workstation or server. (in case you don't know, it's based on a climate model developed at U Oregon called "Prism") This was not some advanced climate simulation going on like trying to predict hurricanes. And given that computer technology has advanced so much including the algorithm development one would have to say the current USDA map reflects a certain lack of vision, though, again, at least they finally got it correct. By this I mean something like the Sunset system could have been developed, although there were problems with that approach if you try to extend it over the country. Rather than discrete numbers that could get ridiculously long for certain plants (i.e., this grows in 21, 33,34,35,36,37,38,40,52,61,62,63,64,75,78 etc) it could have used a series of vectors that graph a space representing the plant's preferences. Zones 1 to 10 would still be the first dimension of this system so you don't "break compatibility" with what we already have. The two main additional factors I would propose would be aridity, and summer temperature. There are several reasons for this; namely, there are already 2 factors certain nurseries use when selling plants. The AHS "heat zone" map exists, and is used by a few nurseries to show warning on certain species, and aridity scales have been adopted by Desert Northwest and High Country Gardens. Mind you these scales would not necessarily be linear and could code a sub-dimension, or even be matrixed to code an additional factor. For example it might make more sense for moisture to go: part of year arid - sporadic/none of year - all year - part of year but high atmospheric moisture. Because there are non-linearities in the way plants behave with respect to that, and with summer temperature. Some cool summer seasonal plants are actually known to grow in all year rainfall climates like England, but only with cool summers. The point is the arrange things in the way that leads to the most chances of solid groupings. Such mathematical shenanigans might make it hard for people to understand how to derive their own zone, but the point is it doesn't matter. They will get their zone off a map. Also different from the Sunset zones, there no need for a comprehensive, singular map because everyone will use some kind of smart device in the future that can easily click one location between 3 or more different maps. So a zone like mine would go from 7a (I think the a/b is of more limited usefulness than most people realize, though I have and will continue to reference the subzones) to something like 7J6. 7 being 0 to 10f min annual temp, J being a climate with rain all year but some expectation of brief droughts, and 6 being heat zone 6. Let's call it the Comprehensive Plant Zone. A _PLANT_ ranges, versus a gardening location, would go from "USDA zone 7-10" for a maritime climate plant like Eucryphia, to "CPZ (comprehensive plant zoning) zone "7H2-10M4" meaning that range of minimum winter temps, and a generally moist climate though accepting somewhat dry summers, as long as 3) the summers are cool. I would instantly recognize that I can't grow the plant because I'm off on one of the codes. Of course, this will never happen and there will be howls of "it's too complicated" but you can be sure in the early 1960s some hayseeds saw the first Harvard zone map and said "oh them fancy professors and their durn maps, I know what grows here and uh don't need some map." Also let's face that other than the big midwestern cities the net migration in the country is towards the SE, S & W where the USDA zone system is least useful. USDA system is most useful for telling people in Iowa there are many, many plants that they are far too cold to grow (sorry Iowans, someone had to be an example) than answering the question for someone in Phoenix, Arizona of whether a certain species of Protea could grow there. (and I reckon a couple of the most heat tolerant ones could) That a sunset zone map was made for the whole country is something I applaud, my idea just tries to make their system easier to use when dealing with a lot of customers and plants. Instead of saying "that only grows in 31, not 42" it's more helpful to say "your moisture factor of J is too much for an A-E plant, it will rot".

I would think you can remove the red maple. The other one should create enough shade for your patio, and you get a little more space to plant something else, and some light from the other side. I would put in a couple different shade tolerant evergreens in that area, things that don't get too large - meaning narrow, weeping, or slow growing. The area is very close to your patio and I would want some variety since I have to look at it all year. Don't forget broadleafs like holly and rhododendron. You could mix in some deciduous shrubs for variety, such as vibernums, oakleaf or arborescens hydrangea. Once you have something in that area, you may feel you don't need a solid wall. Holly I would recommend Dragon Lady. Other people have given you ideas for shade tolerant conifers. I would also do a row of shade perennials in front, stuff like hosta, Carex, brunnera, heucheras, etc. Annuals like begonias and impatiens will give you bright flowers in the summer, and those can go in pots too. Whatever you plant, plant it before the maple/s get too large, because it will be very hard, if not impossible to plant under. When you pick plants, think how the leaves will look next to each other. Contrast makes an interesting screen. While you still have sun, you can get screening from tall ornamental grasses planted next to you patio wall. It will be like a living wall when you sit down, but be open to the sky.