What immediately leaps out at me in the first picture is the very narrow walk to the front stoop. If i was going to make a walk for an RV, parked on a seasonal basis, I might make it that narrow. Actually, I doubt it. I would make it wider. Here, is a walk to a permanent home and it's only capable of handling a single file approach. Not very inviting and it makes the whole house look cheaper. The walk should be as wide as the whole stoop (since it is also narrow) which means that it would abut the garage wall on the right side (no room for planting.)

Also, I'd remove the two outside shrubs in the hedge below the window. Keep the three in the center. (Though they ARE very close to the house as pointed out. This could be adjusted if you like, though I know many are not prone to disturbing what exists and can "pass.")

While I'm OK with the position of the small tree, I'm seriously disliking it's uncontrolled behavior ... low, spreading branches do not seem compatible as an architectural enhancement. What to do with it should start with a vision of how it might work as a finished product. If mine, I would probably cut it nearly to ground and completely regrow it in a happy shape (and control it along the way.) I know that's asking too much of others, though! Bed could be bigger under it, too. Since it produces shade, maybe the bed under it could be solid hostas. They're easy and nice looking.

I agree the side walk is awful. we do plan on bringing the porch out to the end of the left wall and widening the sidewalk. We will be extending the side walk to the garage wall on the right and also to the left where the house ends.

Although hard to see the shrubs are about 18 inches from the house and do not touch it. These are in bad shape though and we are considering getting rid of those and starting over. I dont know what to replace it with. I was thinking knockout roses, what do you think?

Now the small tree that is being pointed out, are you referring to the one planted directly in front of the sidewalk? I know the tree to the left of the house needs to be trimmed I dont know how far to trim it back?

I really appreciate the answers, it confirms what i thought, that sidewalk has to go!

Notice the openness of the approach to the house in Yardvaark's drawing and the width of the walk. If it's in the budget to totally replace it, I think I'd choose a more neutral color. I would have a combination of flowering and evergreen plants as Yardvaark has illustrated, densely enough planted so that they will keep down weeds once they've established. I like how both Yardvaark and Vstavay have used the same plant repeated from the pot by the garage to the other side of the walkway. I agree that the tree needs pruning for shape, but I think in this case Yardvaark's drawing shows it pruned far too high for what I find attractive in that type of tree which looks like an ornamental fruit tree of some type. I would get a professional arborist (not a landscaper who may or may not have a clue about pruning) to come help you with the pruning.

For now worry about the design, later worry about specific plants such as roses or others. The walkway should be done before you start planting your permanent choices so that the plants aren't damaged, so you have time to decide, and early fall is a great time to plant. If you really want something growing there this summer so it looks nice, plant some voluptuous annuals and then mulch well to keep weeds from getting established. If you want to start thinking about specific plants, ask on the forums listed above. When you ask about plant suggestions on plant forums, be sure to include your location as well as what your soil is like and the direction this area faces as those are all things which influence plant choice.

PROLandHome.

WOW thank you so much, I love everyones thoughts. What is the program you are using to redesign the picture?

"I agree that the tree needs pruning for shape, but I think in this case Yardvaark's drawing shows it pruned far too high for what I find attractive in that type of tree which looks like an ornamental fruit tree of some type. I would get a professional arborist (not a landscaper who may or may not have a clue about pruning) to come help you with the pruning."

This position represents a fundamental, philosophical difference in our thinking. In one school of thought, the landscape is a functional artwork. In the other, it is a display for horticultural efforts. In the latter, the bottom of the canopy (how high the tree is pruned) depends on the type of tree it is. And this depends upon a somewhat arbitrary convention promoted by horticulturalists, arborists and the like.) Presumably, the criteria would have to do with plant health, function and that sort of thing. In the landscape school of thought I subscribe to, the landscape is a specialized garden. It is a combination of art and engineering that is no more than additional construction onto a building (in the case where a building is present and is the centerpiece of the work) but with different materials that are durable for the outdoors. To me a building and a yard is at the service of the human body, especially the head. It is the height of the head that regulates the placement of a ceiling. While some people are shorter and some are taller, it has been decided long ago that ceilings are much nicer when they are several feet above one's head. When money is no object, clearly, people's preference is for higher ceilings, not lower. Short people are lucky in that ceilings, for them, are always a little higher. Tall people complain when ceilings are too short. To me, landscape plants are not objects which must conform to some professional's preconceived notion of what they are supposed to be; they are materials with a built-in plastic capability with a given range of potential. If they are used in a common garden, it hardly matters (except to a professional's opinion) how the owner chooses to form and shape them. In most cases, they are left alone to "do their thing" ... which people have a tendency to accept as the "proper" potential for a given plant. But in landscape gardens, trees and plants are first doing jobs, and then looking beautiful. A primary job of a tree is to provide a ceiling. The objective in selecting landscape plants is to match their plastic potential to one's need and desire for a given size, form, shape and structure.

Given that I think of trees mostly as small accessory buildings with domed roofs -- the bottom of which is a ceiling -- I find it absurd that a ceiling would be placed at the height of one's thighs (as it is above)! Or waist, chest, eyes ... or even scraping the top of their head! It is much better placed OVER one's head, with plenty of room to spare, since humans jump and wave their arms. We have not even touched on the fact that houses have faces and low ceilings generally tend to obscure them. With my viewing landscapes as essentially FUNCTIONAL spaces, SUBORDINATE to buildings, it does not seem to me that obscuring the building face (as long as it is attractive) is good idea. A little is OK and it goes a long way. The more beautiful a building is, the less it needs obfuscation from foliage.

While I'll agree that landscapers sometimes don't have great ideas about pruning (even basic practices) I will argue that when it comes to the landscape garden, sometimes the so-called pros (horticulturalists, arborists) do not take into account the overall, big picture objective of a particular plant's job and how it best fits in.

Yardv, you correctly have me pegged as a horticulturalist more than a designer, but I don't feel that all trees need to be walked under, so while I agree that a ceiling shouldn't be thigh high, I also think a tree need not always be a ceiling. To me this is functioning more as a large shrub, and is far enough off the corner of the house and set back enough that it isn't obscuring the facade for many perspectives. I like that it doesn't allow good sight lines between the two houses whereas your up-pruned one does. If it were a different form of tree, I agree that it might well look better pruned up and would be serving a different landscape function, but this tree in this setting isn't best serving as a ceiling in the landscape to my eye, but more as a fence/wall to the side yard and as a softener for the right angle of the house. I guess we will have to agree to disagree here. I often do think that when you suggest pruning, it can be the right move, but just not here.

I concur that some screening of the adjacent house, as it usually is, is a good thing, but using a low slung tree does not seem to me like the good way to do it. At some point people will have to pass below it or work below it. Using the shrub form in some way would be better for screening.