Well I'm late to get back. I was trying to digest all the feedback, and the work week was busy. So... Unprofessional: thank you for the suggestions. When you mention flowing lines, do you mean a smoothly curving bed line, or transitioning conifer sizes, from tall, gradually to short, not tall short tall short? How exactly does one achieve smooth flow. Sorry if that sounds like a silly question. The 5 I have now are intermediate growers. Is the rule of thumb to put dwarfs next step down from them, or it doesn't matter as long as it fits in the space for as long as I want? SC77: thank you for the combination example. That's exactly the kind of tip I was looking for. Mike: wow, your post is what stumped me, in a good way. First, I had never read about garden design explained with the analogy of a water body. Your explanation makes it easier to visualize. Are the any books or websites I can refer to that demonstrates that principle preferably with plenty of illustrations? I will work on a drawing for the overall design and attach that for feedback. I have a rough idea, but not the complete picture. I thought I can start at the boundary and work my way in. Over the years, if I need less lawn space, I thought I can expand the beds. When you mentioned a tree with a trunk for the incurves, does it have to be a big tree, or maybe just bigger in size compared to what's in the bay, or just something stronger impact/bolder texture compared to what's in the bays/ out curves? My square footage is not very large so I feel afraid of placing something large up close. Is that just foolishness from inexperience? I was glad my general plan matched with what you recommended. I did plant those trees to hide the house, and the curve was getting wider there. I was afraid of making the lines too busy and squigley, so I thought the oval would give me a simple design with one smooth curve, and make the lawn minimum, but functional for badminton, croquet, etc. but I think you are encouraging me to add a few gentle curves to make it more interesting and add depth! Ken: No way is it going to be a fast project. Conifers are expensive for me, and starting a garden from nothing takes time and hard work. The planting appears flat to you because I started with the big trees first, and they'll be at the back even in places where the bed will be wider. The bed lines are not drawn yet. As for the triangle, refer to the picture in my first post. The 'Gold Drift', P. glauca 'Pendula', and P. pungens create a triangle. I was looking for help in placing smaller plants next to them that will be complimentary. How large, in terms of growth rate, do i pair with them, and that kind of determines how many plants I can fit into each triangle, before I add more out in front of those trees. 'Gold Drift' and the pungens are more then 8 feet apart, and I will not leave all that space empty. You and many others are advising me to go with what I like and then I can move them if I want. I don't want to move the larger trees (if they live, there's that still) but I can certainly play around with the smaller ones. No more conifer planting for me until Fall. For now planning, setting up watering, and finding out what lived. I did mail order some perennials though, for other parts of the yard.

That 2011 picture I had posted showed that beautiful 'Strict Weeping'. The main trunk has died. Now 5 years later the little then 2 1/2 ft parallel 'trunk', seen in the left of that 2011 picture, has become 5 ft and is healthy and bushier. It comes out of the stub of the dead 'Strict Weeping' trunk at soil level. So that might be root stock, But since I planted it at a corner of the house in the back, I simply let it grow. It looks nice, but not that towering 'Strict Weeping' I had bought. In the front of my house I have a 30 ft healthy Cupressus nootkatensis 'Pendula', so these type trees can live in my yard successfully. I still have a Cupressus nootkatensis 'Van den Akker', but it stalled at about 5 1/2 ft and is healthy. I had problems with 'Van den Akker', with the first one the nursery telling me they had a production problem. So I hope for the future, it should grow 1 ft a year. This one is healthy, seems to like its place and neighbors, and I leave it there.

Thanks nothotsuga for your explanation, I didn't know this part of historie. At school were I learned to become a nurseryman, I learned that the name was Chamaecyparis nootkatensis. Soon I learned that something wasn't right about this species because the cones were much differend then all the other Chamaecyparis species. Another thing was that it wasn't possible to graft the Chamaecyparis nootkatensis cultivars onto Chamaecyparis lawsoniana understock. Later on I heard that the name Chamaecyparis nootkatensis was renamed in Xanthocyparis nootkatensis because it was related to a new find conifer in Vietnam, Xanthocyparis vietnamensis. Lately I found out at this forum that a 3th name for this species was given, Cupressus nootkatensis which was allready given as the very first name you're telling me and that it was Spach (or Spät?) who named it in the wrong way as Chamecyparis nootkatensis... This is quite a story but the very sad thing is that in a lot of books discriptions are mentioned about Chamaecyparis nootkatensis and Xanthocyparis nootkatensis. I hope that this confusion will be explained in a good way in new written books. For me and other nurserymen is this new name a big problem because our customers are just familiar with the name Xanthocyparis and now whe have to tell them that also this name isn't right and that the correct name is Cupressus nootkatensis... How about the famous cross Cupressocyparis x leylandii? This name isn't possible, because Cupressus and Chamaecyparis will never cross. What should be the correct name for this plant, Cupressus x leylandii? Thanks again!

Species produces a large tree (see at link, below). The non-dwarf cultivar you bought - which the Van Den Akker family grew and sold as 'Pendula' - is known over 70 ft. tall at an office complex east of Seattle. Left where it is your new tree is going to be crowding the house and making it look smaller once the conifer gets big enough. Another weeping form I planted here from a 5 gallon pot was soon growing 2, perhaps some years 3 ft. per year. The stump it left when removed was more than a foot across. After the cypess began hanging over the street there was a carpet of fallen, dead foliage on the pavement much of the time. Your tree will some day be dropping persistent debris on your house if left where it is. It will also be rubbing on it. Here is a link that might be useful: Cupressus nootkatensis (Alaska yellow-cedar) description This post was edited by bboy on Mon, Nov 24, 14 at 21:33