I wouldn't move the rhody, it is too large to move unless you root prune it first. You would have to replace it with a younger specimen.

What is wrong with your blue spruce? It looks pretty healthy to me. It needs a few conifer buddies.

Maybe you could add the Picea omorika in place of the rhody, and then layer down to a shorter, broader conifer in a dark green or gold, and two or three round, low specimens in a zigzag line across the front of the house. With a skirt of prostrate junipers around the larger trees, to define the bed, or you could use large clumps of sturdy perennials.

What you are asking us to do is a tall order and almost an impossibility to accomplish on a garden forum.

To begin with you have a very nice setting for a beautiful landscape design and you need to have a plan to work off. Sit down and draw a to scale plan of the area you wish to redesign. 1/8th or 1/4 inch to the foot should do. You can always have this with you for reference as you search for the right plants.
Pick and choose your plants from the many resources that are out there. Make sure they are zone tolerant for your area. The ACS data base is an excellent resource for conifers and you should be able to determine what you want to use from the many photos offered along with growth habits.

Go for the main players first which would be your focal point plants. With those in place you can work other companion plants in the design. Color is important. Rocks and boulders worked into the design can add a lot of appeal to it has alway been there natural look.

Get involved and do your own design. You won't be disappointed and you can have fun doing it.

Dave

I'd agree with Dave that this is a project you can undertake yourself with ease. And there are no shortage of excellent sources nearby to provide inspiration.

Here's just a couple of thoughts: I'd leave the rhody intact and in place. Although larger rhodies can be moved relatively easily (have done so numerous times myself), I think the contrast of the broad leaves will add textural interest to a conifer planting. And I'd seriously rethink the height issue - if I understand your post to replant the bed that arcs in front of your house with the selection of conifers, you don't want anything that will achieve any serious height (like as much as 30') or you will soon be living in a cave. I'd focus on dwarfs, which Ken will be quick to point out are only limited in size as to their rate of growth. But slower growing dwarfer forms will not develop into a solid, tall wall of green any time soon.

If you wish to replace the spruce - blue spruces tend not to thrive in our very mild and often damp PNW climate - with a grouping of similar trees, consider one of the very narrow forms of weeping Alaska cedar, like 'Green Arrow' or 'Van den Akker' - these present such a narrow profile they tend to look best in a grouping and are well suited to our location. And they are affordable at size. Or a grouping of 'Blue Ice' Arizona cypress to offer a similar coloring to the spruce. IMO, something like the Picea omorika 'Pendula Bruns' is too distinct a specimen to use in a grouping - you lose the effect of the character of the tree if in a mass planting. And to get a selection of those of size, you'd need to mortgage your house! But one in a location of note, perhaps closer to the entry, could be stunning.

Other selections I'd consider - Cedrus deodora 'Snowsprite' or 'Feelin' Blue', Chamaecyparis obtusa 'Templehof', Kosteri' or 'Nana Lutea', Pinus contorta 'Spaan's Dwarf', Pinus sylvestris 'Hillside Creeper' or of you can find one, Pinus contorta 'Chief Joseph' or 'Taylor's Sunburst'. But there are scores of other choices at many local area nurseries to select from. Just pick a variety that will offer a range of forms and shapes and foliage texture and color.

Thanks so much for your responses. I guess I should clarify a bit as it does seem like I'm asking for a lot. Essentially what I'm looking for are some recommendations on either

- one variety of narrow conifer that would look nice grouped and can be planted close to each other (is less than 7-8 feet apart asking for too much?)

Or

- 2-3 narrow conifers (with 1-2 of them being tall) that would complement each other and can be planted close to each other.

I have found many that look good on websites, in nurseries, and in books, but they are almost always pictures of young plants. Rarely do I find good pictures of them as mature plants (15+ years out), and I know that they can REALLY change in their appearance in that time. Or, the photo is of a small part of the tree, not the whole thing. Or, I find two completely different looking trees that are labeled the same thing. That is where I'm hoping your experiences and knowledge can help me out with some recommendations. I am overwhelmed by choices and frustrated by a lack of good pictures.

I have tons of plants to serve as my middle and understory - I'm set there.

Also, to provide a little more clarity:

I want the conifers along the property line - not in front of the house (not where the empty looking bed is in the above photos, but where the spruce and rhody are). I would definitely be in a cave if I put them in front of my windows.

The blue spruce has mites/aphids/etc and I don't want to do the spraying they often require here in the PNW to look nice. Also, it is too close to my neighbor's fence, so the back half of it has been whacked back and is pretty much void of needles.

The rhody I will probably keep in roughly the same area, but I want to move it and put some height there because when I'm sitting in the living room, I look straight into our neighbors kitchen/family area where he spends all of his time. I've moved several large ones already with success.

I've got a rough plan for the area that includes boulders, water feature, etc. I just haven't reached that "Ah-ha!" point regarding the trees, and therefore, the other stuff can't fall into place.

I will definitely research the trees mentioned. Some of those look like ones I've come across. I am tempted by the weeping Alaska cedars. There were lots put in by the HOA in the development I lived in a couple years ago - they are still pretty young, and I have no idea what variety they are. I almost always see them planted as singles, but I can imagine they would be very nice grouped.

Thanks!

Two narrow uprights that would look good in a grouping of three are: Picea pungens 'Blue Totem'
Picea abies 'Compressa'

You didn't specify a color preference. Of course, the 'Compressa' would be dark green and the 'Totem' blue.

If you go for the 'Totem' make sure it is 'Totem' and not 'Fastigiata'. The two are very similar with the 'Totem' having branches growing more upright thus keeping it more in the confines you are looking for.

You said you were also considering the Alaskan weeping cedar, Chamaecyparis nootkatensis. The narrowest cultivar would be 'Strict Weeping'. Very narrow with foliage hanging down directly against the trunk. Other cultivars to consider are 'Green Arrow' and 'Jubilee'.

This should get you off dead center as to choices. Hopefully, others will chime in with other considerations now that we have a broader picture of what you are looking for.

Good luck,

Dave

I'd move the rhododendron out of there, your feeling that it won't mesh with the new planting selections is probably on target. Looks to me like it will throw the new arrangement out of balance, a heavy lump off to the left of what may end up being some tall, comparatively slender conifers near the corner of the house (I wouldn't emphasize the corner with exclamation point plants either, but anyway...). Don't root prune beforehand, just slice around it sometime between now and spring and replant in a better location, where a large-leaved (coarse-textured), (later) large shrub will fit in.

Since these are apt to become buggy and balding in this climate I wouldn't include any Colorado spruce in the new scheme. Also beware of Nootka cypress cultivars, none of the commonly sold ones are dwarf-growing. I have a 'Pendula' I planted myself from a 5 gallon pot that was soon growing as much as 3' per year and may now be in the neighborhood of 40' tall. One of the extreme weeping forms, with spire-like habit (above the basal branches) growing at the entrance to a local hospital is probably considerably taller (wild examples in PNW mountains grow over 100' tall).

To see a variety of conifers for ideas of kinds to look for visit the new Coenosium Rock Garden at South Seattle Community College, it is near the northernmost parking entrance (inside the arboretum and over near the arterial). Nearby plantings also have some older specimens of other kinds that will give you an idea of maturing size and appearance. Another place you can see a fair selection of older garden conifer specimens (in Seattle) is Kubota Gardens park; there is also a couple of locations in the Washington Park Arboretum that contain groupings of dwarf, slow-growing or otherwise aberrant conifer forms. Visit during open hours and ask at the information desk for directions.

"Don't root prune beforehand, just slice around it sometime between now and spring"...this is root pruning, bboy. While I guess it's NOT necessary (and I believe gardengal when she says it isn't), doing it at least 2-3 months before moving a plant of that size is the best way to ensure that the feeder roots along the root ball have begun to grow back, stressing the plant less than if you just yanked it out of the soil and moved it.

Slicing around it and digging it up sometime between now and spring. New roots aren't likely to be produced from cut ends of old roots until spring. If the plant is root-pruned in advance and then dug after the delicate new roots are coming out of the cut old roots, then these new roots are likely to be damaged or killed during the transplanting operation - accomplishing nothing.

"...with the multitude of factors involved, both internally in the plant and environmentally, the likelihood of striking the right combination is challenging. At this point root pruning may be one of those techniques that is best to talk about rather than practice"

--Establishment and Maintenance of Landscape Plants, 1987 (1991) Edition

And here is another. I'm new here, I guess you've gone round and round with this one before.

Yes, there is no shortage of dis-proven ideas and obsolete recommendations.

The important thing is, since both jraz and gardengal have successfully moved rhodys in the past (and I've never actually tried to), will it fit in the new planting scheme?

I agree with gardengal, its textural interest nicely complements the conifers. Jraz has clarified that she plans to put hers in front of a taller plant, which would give a mature, layered effect to the grouping.

I didn't realize until you said so, that you weren't replanting the bed in front of the house with miniature conifers. But wouldn't that be nice?

I found a nice photo of Picea omorika, the straight species. Hopefully it will give you a clearer picture of what I was thinking. I would stick with only a couple of tall trees, 7 or 8 feet apart is pretty close, but most are relatively slow growing. I would definitely look at growth rates before committing!
bboy's suggestion to get out there and have a look at trees growing in your area is an excellent one. You will get lots of great suggestions on this thread, and it will be fun to finally scope out those one or two special ones.

Rhododendrons are quite portable, basically you cut around them and pop them out - they have naturally dense, compact root systems.

Although there are plenty of younger Serbian spruce around temporarily fitting nicely into smallish spaces we ARE talking about a full-height tree (unless one like the cultivar 'Nana' is selected). During 1992 I measured a Picea omorika in Lake Stevens, WA that was 61' tall, with an average crown spread of 21'.

If cypress spruce (P. abies 'Cupressina') was suggested in an earlier post the one conspicuously located on Arboretum Drive in Seattle was 46' tall with an average crown spread of 19' by 1995; last year (2006) the same specimen was 60' high.

If plantings aren't going to get away from you or end up being deformed by maintenance pruning careful selection is required, choosing popular offerings that look perfect in nursery sizes is a frequent mistake. Growers crank out large quantities of vigorous plants that allow stock to be sold frequently but are really too much for many situations.

Ok, what is it with these plants - more often than not, I see a nice photo of a beautiful evergreen and it takes my breath away!

I'm liking the looks of Chamaecyparis nootkatensis 'glauca pendula'. It doesn't look particularly blue in the photos I've seen. Any thoughts on how it will look next to this pyramidalis stuff? Gosh I would love to get rid of those (they don't take my breath away!). The textures seem like they could be too similar.

{{gwi:868344}}

Green arrow is probably a bit too narrow - but maybe it is just because I am seeing pictures of juvenile plants?

I will definitely have some mini conifers in the area in front of the house. I have been known to leave the nursery with those cute little ones that fit great in a winter pot (but get quickly buried in a summer pot). Maybe someday my 6" dwarf hinoki nana lutea will be big enough to go in the garden...

I saw a Picea Omorika "Riverside" a few weeks ago. It was a nice tree, but it looks like the spread is up to 15, which might be a bit much for me. A lady I was talking to at the nursery said she really likes the Vanderwolf Limber Pine. It was a very soft tree, 15-20 high x 8-10 wide the tag said.

I've been looking for pictures of some of the cedrus deodar narrow forms - in particular, quiksilver was one I read about but haven't seen anywhere.

What about cedrus atlantica's here in the PNW? Do they do ok? I see the weeping blue atlas cedar everywhere, but fastigiata looks interesting...

So, I have to laugh about the "how to move a rhody" discussion. I have never been "gentle" to them when moving them. I stick that shovel in wherever I can get it through the roots and then lever them out and drag them across the yard by whatever means I can to a better spot. I started out moving them in the fall or spring, but have done a couple in the height of summer. I swear you can't kill those things here. One of them blew over in an ice/wind storm while I was out of town and was sideways for a couple weeks before being put back in the ground. It didn't even blink. I have to believe there are people in the PNW that consider them weeds they are so tough! And I love them for that!

Yes you can get blown away with some of the technical aspects of this forum. Some people are by the book and quote many references. Others are more inclined apply already known previously applied techniques that have worked for them in the past. In most cases common sense will work. When in doubt get some professional advice. Moving Rhododendron's is not rocket science but in can be when involved in this forum.

The Picea o. 'Riverside' and the Pinus f. 'Vanderwolf' will out grow your area in time. Most tags regarding plant growth habits are for the first 10 years. Also applies to the ACS data base.

bboy has the best advice for you. Go to the locations he has given you and view first hand. Ask questions to the local curator in charge. The guy or gal growing and caring for these plants can give you the best information regarding any concerns you have.

Dave

Yes: the 'Glauca Pendula' Nootka cypress (as it is represented in current commerce) may not be so very much bluer than usual, I see planted trees around that might have been acquired under that name but it's hard to be sure - plants so-labeled in outlets certainly aren't glaucous to the extent of many other glaucous cultivars.

The Vanderwolf pine is not a dwarf either, one I saw in the Yakima Area Arboretum some years ago may have been as much as 40' wide. Another vigorous and common offering frequently stuck into too-small spaces.

You may like the look of Picea omorika 'Bruns' (NOT 'Pendula Bruns'). It is narrower than the species yet not a weeper like 'Pendula Bruns'. As I recall, at 12-14 feet it's width is about 4 feet.

tj

Internet photos show an otherwise rather orthodox tree with up-swept branches. Not surprisingly one page gives the 14' x 4' as a 10-year height. Another gives a size range of up to 30' x 15' for an unspecified period. While certainly a handsome tree, with the silvery undersides of its needles on display I wouldn't count on it being a small narrow spire. Looks like another conifer cultivar that may rapidly become less distinct as it ages. Perhaps significantly, what I assume to be the introducing nursery is apparently not listing it as this time.

The biggest specimens of 'Bruns' that I have seen were around 10'x3' so I guess they could baloon out with age. Either that or it's a matter of where on the tree the scion wood is harvested. An effect many cultivars suffer from. That is interesting that Bruns no longer lists it because, as you said bboy, it is a handsome tree (if it stays narrow).

tj

In addition to cultivariance site conditions can affect development. Cypress family conifers in particular can vary markedly in habit on different sites. To use a familiar example, the same Leyland cypress can be columnar, like an Italian cypress or pyramidal, like a Monterey cypress depending on what region or district it is planted in.

Best Picea omorika for you is and I'm right,, Picea omorika 'Gotelli Weeping' sold through Coenosium Gardens catalog which you pay a few bucks for and it arrives in January. He also has a new webpage I forgot.

About 'Green Arrow' Cypress "nootka" there was a photo of three on the back of a Conifer Quarterly issue (American Conifer Society) which were in the height range of 75 feet to 100 feet and from my guessing I believed them to be 25 feet wide or 20 feet or something I cannot remember but this plant all the way to the top was the same width. It's a beautiful specimen. That'll gauge you what will happen. Not tomorrow or today but in 50 years or so.

Here's a 'Glauca Pendula' which is gonna be a wide son of a gun. Photo from The Harper Collection of Conifers in Michigan. It's a beauty.

Dax

(link to another photo below)

Thanks everyone for your thoughts. I've been out looking, taking pictures, and researching on the internet (since the ground is frozen here! and I can't plant). I'm thinking of going with one tree that is up to 10-12 feet wide. I've got a list that includes some suggestions here, some unidentified trees I've photographed, and some I've come across elsewhere. I'll start a new thread when I get it all pulled together. Thanks!