It actually doesn't look that bad to me. One of the better looking suburban white pines I've seen, actually. (They often end up looking bad in the suburbs). Is it near a house it might damage?

How long do you think you will be at this house?

What is the tiny tree in the last picture?

First of all, you have a pretty property.

It would be a hard call for me, but I lean toward removal. From what I've seen in the DC suburbs - granted a different climate from your zone 4 - when they get this bad looking, it's always downhill from here, and quickly. Some neighbors of my parents had a row of them that after 35 years or so started looking like this, albeit not quite as tall. Every time they had a set of branches trimmed, instead of the remaining branches somehow strengthening as might happen with some species (probably something more like a hardwood than a conifer), they just seemed to get weaker. So the next round of storms just took out more branches. It was a death spiral! By the end the trees were so comically disheveled, they just removed them completely.

This is definitely one of the most overplanted and inappropriately planted conifers outside of its New England/northern tier/mountain habitat, IMHO.

Ed if you are saying they look bad in coastal New England suburbs, maybe they just don't do well unless they are in pure stands where they support one another? From my limited memory of being in New England...it's been a few years now...I seem to remember the white pines looking better up there.

Weeviled? That's nothing -- you should see some near me w/a half-dozen stems starting at head-height -- and those are otherwise healthy enough.

It looks OK to me, but that's me.

I never feel good about taking down a tree

==>>> nonsense ... no tree hugging allowed ... make yourself feel better by planting two or three other trees ...mother earth.. net +2 ...

let me put it this way ... removal will cost more.. the more years you wait ... nothing ever goes down in price ...

get rid of it ... guilt free ....

ken

Remember it you take this tree down you will never see a tree that is an equal replacement. Yes you can take it down and plant two or three other trees, but it will be 20 to 30 years before they are equal to this tree. Will you be around in 20 to 30 years to see it when it is a true replacement

maackia, I looked at your pix carefully and this indecision's really buggin' me, it's like tease, tease, tease. If your tree goes there will be trouble, if it stays it will be double. Does that help?

A common tree with a somewhat unsightly form in a residential setting where that matters and that you don't like is taking up space that could be used instead for a much more desirable tree.

Yes, you will spend quite some years watching as the replacement grows into a large size. Or you could spend that same time period looking at an ugly tree.

Bite the bullet.

Richard.

I don't think this tree looks bad. I would keep it if it were me.

I agree that you have a very pretty property.

Aesthetics are subjective, of course. I tried to look at it from the original poster's perspective, where the tree was described as having poor form, still being a mess, and likely to be subject to future snow damage.

Granted, it's not doing my eyes much good, either, but he's the one who has to look at it (or its replacement, depending on what he decides).

Richard.

I read the follow up posts; the problem isn't how it looks now, the problem is how will look if branches keep falling out of the crown. But maackia is in an upper midwest climate without hurricanes, northeasters that drop 20" of heavy wet snow at once with high winds, etc. (although I guess they can get tornadoes) So, maybe it can last like this for another decade or even longer. In some places, believe me...it wouldn't.

Ed, I'm 59 and hope to die here...preferably under one of the oaks. My paternal and maternal family member have shown an uncanny tendency to pass away from the ages of 82-88, so I'm hoping to be here for another 25-29 years...give or take...

The small tree in front of the large oak is Maackia amurensis. I'd like to give a shout out to Richard Maack, the Russian botanist who named this tree while exploring the Amur River region. BTW, the common name for this fine little tree is Amur Maackia, which I wish I could somehow change. How about Russian Yellowwood?

David, thank you. You've put your finger on the problem. The main concern is not wind, but heavy, wet spring snows that do occur with some regularity. Poorly branched white pines are very susceptible to damage from these events. There's another WP about 50' from this one that didn't lose a single branch during the snows that decimated this one. I'm not at all optimistic about this pine outgrowing it's structural problems, which is why I'm leaning towards removal.

Sam, you're a very perceptive person. I don't mean to clash with you, but you haven't given me an answer. So come on and let me know, should it stay or should it go?

Ken, I'm a tree huggin', nature lovin' kind of guy. I'll hug just about anything...

I'm in the "doesn't look that bad" camp. More trees is a good thing. Why cut down a good tree somewhat wantonly?

" Why cut down a good tree somewhat wantonly?"

And that's the other side of the coin. I would only argue that since I've been deliberating for about a year now, I don't think wantonly is the correct word to describe the situation. BTW, what is a "good tree?"

I have trouble seeing black and white, which can lead to paralysis. My spouse is definitely in the "live and let live" group, so I have to overcome that obstacle first if I should decide to take it down. Negotiations are taking place...

Heh, in my book of many things, most trees are "good trees". Think of it as the default designation for any tree, lol.

Could be a fooler due to something about the photo, but doesn't even look very close to the oaks. Are they really inhibiting one another? Sure doesn't look it to me.

maackia(Zone 4): If you are really putting this up to a vote, my vote is to keep it. But then, I prefer the "wooded look" to the "formal" look. I go for the majesty of a big old tree rather then something exotic with perfect form. If you decide to take it down later, you can always do it later. Only reason I can see to do otherwise is of you need to clear the space to plant a replacement, or if the tree looks much worse in person.

davidrt28 (zone 7): Didn't notice your question. White pine look amazing in the woods up here. I've seen great looking rows of old white pine along the property lines of old farms and parks. Young white pine look great in suburbs. Old ones in suburbs can be problematic. In the woods they kind of screen each other from the wind, and no one much cares if they drop branches. In the open they are more vulnerable to wind, and people freak out if a tree near the house drops branches. A white pine grown in the open can go through an "ugly duckling" phase while they decide whether they really need to lose those lower branches (as they would in the woods) when they have all that light. The transition from the perfect Christmas tree to the majestic limbed up forest giant can look homely if you have to see it out your kitchen window every day. Also they are just too big for most suburban lots.