thanks for the great points.. I am thinking of black gum now in place of the red maple - slower growing, not as large and like moist spots... I don't think it would shade out the spruce.. I would plant them almost parallel with the deciduous tree a few feet closer to the home... plus the sun would really kick in from 1030 to about 430 on that spot in mid summer... then some more intermittent/dappled sun. Should that be enough for the NS?

As for the border, you make a great point. But what if I spread out the arrangement? Also I tend to prune my dogwoods and nine barks.. I like to keep them under control... that should mitigate the concerns you've stated.. the question is, if I plant something like silver fir along this intermittent arrangement, will they crowd out everything? If I factor about a 15 to 20 width potential for the fir and place some grasses between the dogwood and fir until the little firs grow, would that work? for whatever reason, I love the idea of at least a couple of conifers in there... or I could do 3 dogs, 1 fir, 3 nb, fir, 3 dog, and so on...I have about 90feet to work with... 50 feet dedicated to the firs for potential growth, 45 for shrubs, and grasses to fill in spaces.. ornamental tree is not necessary but they are nice... and I don't have to inckude NB. But the ivory halo i do love...

thoughts?

Well, this is again a personal opinion, but I can't see having a NS dead center in the yard - for me it would be way too close to the birch. And then, if you added another tree along the same line, the NS would suffer. Not immediately, but give it 10 or 15 years. I could see it if the NS were placed back toward the back fence and closer to the shed - its hard to get a sense of distances with the one picture above. But this is a personal opinion from a non-professional.

Your shrub border along the side of the property - again for me it has too much. I have 150 feet along the back of my property. Envisioning it down to 90 feet and looking at it, I just can't imagine that number of large shrubs plus a few trees fitting nicely along that space. Keep in mind that you have to work around your neighbour's large tree, so your trees have to be spaced appropriately away from the neighbour.

If your border along the side of the property is quite deep, then you do have a bit more leg room to play with and can stagger plants such that you can fit more plantings, but if you put shrubs and trees along a straight line along the fence, then you end up being more limited to how many plants you can fit. Whatever you do, I'd suggest that you don't take your neighbour's border in picture #3 above as an example for your own border, unless you are prepared to do a large and costly overhall in 15 years.

I hope that the other professionals will chime in here. As I say, I am not the professional, and I tend to crave simplicity in garden design (partly because I myself overplanted years ago, and am finding it hard to bring back the beauty in the garden as a result).

So so you don't think 100 feet is enough to accommodate the birch, NS and another medium deciduous species. Ok fair enough. I need to make that back line more private that's for sure. Maybe I should line that back fence with a mix of a few shrubs and arborvitae like wintergreen or similar. Another Option is a few cupreasina back there along with some shrubs. I could also plant it annoy closer to the shed as you suggest and that would open up the distance bw the birch and the spruce. I could them add a sharing or two and or an arborvitae. I really like NS. Ive always wanted one. Privacy is very important to me and my goal is to have a completely private yard within a few years

the side is a bit more complicated I gues. Maybe I should plant a line of white cedars and call it a day! So do you think there's any room for a concolor along that side? That's another one of my favs. Perhaps some shrubs like 3 dogwood or similar and then the fir? And if there's space, another deciduous (black gum?)

the more ore I think about this the more frustrated I become with it. Bottom line is I am not happy with what I have now but I can't afford to hire a landscaper.

By by the way this crappy trees on my neighbors side are the dread box alders. I am about to ask her to cut them down since 4 of them are leaning against our fence. I cut the branches that creep over my property line. I cannot stand those trees. They are the cockroaches/rats of the botanical world.

I shouldn't really be answering, given my lack of credentials, but since no one else has chimed in thus far ... I guess I'd say that if your primary goal is privacy, then I'd guess that what I think of as crowding trees/shrubs together, works in terms of privacy. So, yes, your original plan would provide privacy. Indeed, your neighbour's shrub border will most likely also provide that as well. I guess that I was trying to point out that in the case of the neighbour's border (picture #3), she'll probably find in about 5 -8 years time, that the shrubs will cause some of the lower branches of the spruce trees to loose needles, and the spruce trees will in turn cause parts of the shrubs to fail to flourish. But there will still be privacy because there is so many plants. And each plant will have a portion of it alive and well. So what I was trying to say is that in time, each individual plant may loose it's beauty, but you'll definitely have privacy. Its a bit like in my city along busy roads, they overplant areas along the side of the road with trees, shrubs and the like. On day #1 it looks cute. In 10 years, it is a bit like a forest - you can't see the individual shrubs or even the individual trees. But as a forest, it looks nice - its a nice forest. And it provides a nice privacy/noise barrier between the road and the houses nearby.

In terms of privacy along the back fence: I'm not sure if you are saying you want complete privacy? For me, I have a similar issue, but I didn't want a wall of a cedar hedge, so I have enough different trees/shrubs scattered that I get privacy, but it is not completely private. In your case, the back neighbour has a number of trees and shrubs, so it looks to me that you have privacy that will improve as his trees grow, but maybe I'm misreading the picture #1.

Along the side of your house, I think most of us have to work within the confines of what our neighbour plants. My neighbours on either side have things as well that I hate. But I try to work with those items as much as is possible. I don't know how to do computer landscape plans, but I'll try to do a hand drawing of how I would approach your landscape given what you've said. Keep in mind - I'm no landscaper, but I'll try to give you something to get an idea of where I'm coming from. I'll get back to you in half an hour.

The back neighbour has white pine on the left side of the mid-way point. That is what you are seeing... you know what happens to white pine as they mature I'm sure. The lower limbs die off and you are left with a ground clearance of 10 fee or more eventually! Yes, privacy is a huge consideration. I find people to be nosy and I am the opposite.. would have chosen to live in a 100 acres wood property but wife want traditional suburban subdivision.. it's a nice place and lot is 100 wide by 220 deep so half acre ain't bad! So I have 100 feet width to work with of which 35' is taken up already with birch and other stuff on that side. That shed will be replaced in 5 years and placed even closer to the back corner... freeing up even more space for growing trees, shrubs..

To give you some sense of scale - that shed is a good 10 feet long.. maybe more.. there's a lot of space back there... how wide do Norway S get in 40 years? 25 feet wide? maybe 30'? Not sure... We do have a cold climate so there aren't going to grow as fast here as in say, Kentucky or even Pennsylvania.. we are zone 5a.

By the way, I also like serviceberry as a potential shrub candidate.. and i am open to other suggestions... I am not set on dogwood and nine bark although I really do like dogwood

I would also consider moving away from repetition/pattern planting. If I went with a variety of shrubs/trees that worked together in a nice contrasting manner, that could be interesting...

Ok, so I started to draw something for you, but then read your comments above. So it sounds like you are really looking for a hedge of sorts along the back fence as opposed to a landscape garden. And it sounds like you are trying to use medium to large size trees to do the job. Most landscapers (and I'm not a landscaper) object to lines of different types of trees - they prefer to group them. Especially when landscapes are viewed from a distance - a line of say 1 dogwood + 1 ninebark + 1 fir + 1 dogwood + 1 ninebark + 1 serviceberry + ... etc ends up looking messy especially from a distance.

So I think you'd find that a landscaper wouldn't so much object to having 3 spruce trees grouped together, but 1 spruce + 1 birch + 1 maple isn't something they'd do.

I'll point you to a similar thread where someone with a yard like yours has a tree hedge along the back part of his property. If you could move your shed, you could make something similar. Here is the thread:

http://forums2.gardenweb.com/discussions/4148569/planting-a-100-treeline-privacy-fence?n=35

So while the homeowner implemented his own version of a hedge, midway through the thread, Yardvaark gave a sample design with a group of maybe 5 columnar trees on the left, a line of 5 bushy shrubs or small trees in the middle, and 3 spruce trees on the right. You could conceivable do something similar - take out the shed, and plant 3 NS on the right. Plant maybe 5 serviceberries in a line across the center. Then, instead of the group of columnar trees, use your existing birch tree, but make a large bed around it to house 5 or 8 or so ivory halo dogwoods. Then use the area along the right-hand side of your yard to home some of the other desirable plants that you'd like in your space.

So here is a very, very rough sketch of one option with 3 spruce trees on the right. In the middle, a line of large shrubs that would work in the conditions that you have. A bed connecting all of the elements together, and a group of Ivory Halo dogwoods around the birch tree on the left. In front of the birch, you could do a large area planted with lots of low Japanese Forest Grass, "All Gold" to give a bright yellow colour.

I am understanding the theory behind your approach now.. It's true that the grouping/clustering effect has desirable attributes..

A few things to consider if taking this approach though.. Do you think there's enough space for three NS in that corner? Do they not grow very large? I winder if a grouping of cupressina would be a better option? The other question I have about this grouping effect (spaying them in an overlap manner) is in regards to the health of the NS placed in the back - doesn't it lose out on sunlight? Wouldn't the needles/branches die back due to lack of sunlight?

The other "obstacle" is something you can't see from the pics. To the left of the birch is a colorado spruce. It's a small tree that suffered some needle loss on one side due to the larger blue spruce that I felled (you can see the BS laying on the ground to the right of the birch. I have decided to keep this spruce for now even though I am not a fan of CS. They tend to do either well or poorly here. Same issues as the NE US - humidity/climate issues.. we have same climate as NE. Then there is a Miss Canada Lilac I would also have to consider. And finally, there are 2 sensation lilacs that you can't see in the pic dead centre between the birch and the shed. It's a bit of a challenging mess right now. I just hope I didn't get myself into something above my head that will take a long time and a lot of money to fix. I could have just left it all!

I cannot move that shed right now. It is going to have to stay put for a few more years, perhaps several. But even then it will just be pushed deeper into the corner. I could plant the spruce just the same (in front of and to the left of the shed) in a manner that you suggest in your sketch. They need a lot of room to grow so I don't want to ram them into a corner or too close to the neighbors' property line (both neighbours) - I am thinking that the spruce (be it standard or cupressina) should be placed at least 15' from the back fence. I've read they spread 25'+

I like serviceberry idea. The only issue is that the offer full privacy for only part of the year but I suppose it's not a huge deal as we don't go back they that much in the winter...

I could still plant the DWs around the birch as like those quite a lot. But I think I need to take a pic of that corner for you to see what I am referring to above. It may already have a theme going on that would require me to make more alterations. I think I need to clear out the felled trees and take more pics (closer ones) then take some measurements. I know that i have 100' of total width but not sure about the distances between existing trees.

Thanks for the input! It's been excellent!

So seems like the general rule is to plant in an alternating manner of ODD numbers... does it have to alternate or can they be planted in a straight row? I see the former more often. I an just think about the right side of the property.

It is really hard to judge the depth (especially) and width of the available space from the pictures. I think what would be really helpful is if you could make a to-scale plan (layout) of the property showing where the existing trees and shrubs you are keeping are located (indicating distances from rear and side lot lines), as well as the current and future locations of the shed. Then it would be much easier to advise about how many trees you have space for (by drawing circles of the appropriate mature diameter on the plan). I agree with daylily about groups of like species rather than alternating. And I like her suggestion with the serviceberries in the middle. But depending on space, I tend to agree with you that a group of 3 NS would probably be too much for the shed corner. A single NS in that spot could achieve the same design objective. Otherwise, in general, yes, groups of odd numbers. Straight lines can be okay but staggered will appear more natural.

From the point of view of color, I'm not sure I'd put the ivory halo dogwoods beneath the white birch, concentrating a lot of white in that corner. I think your idea of using them somewhere along the right property line would be nice as it would carry the white accent into another part of the yard, complementing the birch.

I am not going place anything under that birch.. roots have made the ground impenetrable. Its a very well establish tree.. I love service berries.. around here the oranges are really coming to prominence now..

I think daylily's idea of 3 NS is excellent but space is my problem... One could represent a beautiful single specimen that could really stand out. And planting it closer to the other side (shed area) would avoid the overcrowding that Daylily brings up.

I am going to get some graph paper and do my best to sketch something to scale...

thanks

I can't say I know how landscape designers and architects are trained, but there are a few things that I "think" I can infer from their designs:

a) They scatter single elements throughout the design such as a specimen trees/shrubs, but then include lots of repeated elements such as a grouping of 3 or 5 or so shrubs or perennials. The repeated elements give weight and flow to the design and prevent the design from looking like a field or forest. So I don't know whether the 3 NS would fit in your corner. But your initial design plan seemed to lack any groupings, and since you posted your question in a landscape design column, hopefully that is an idea you might consider.

b) If you google landscape design ideas on the internet, it seems to me that the ones with the most punch often seem to be the ones that aim for simplicity. Sort of a "less is more" philosophy. So even though a gardener will desire each and all of his/her favourite shrubs/trees/perennials in the garden, often leaving some of the favourites out will result in a better design.

c) Another thing I "think" I notice is that they pay attention to how the plants perform year round as opposed to going for items with say, a beautiful flower. So a daylily with gorgeous flower power that droops and sags after flowering would not be as desirable as a daylily that has a nice plant form before and after flowering.

---

You spoke of the cost of hiring a landscape designer/architect. I'm in
Ottawa and I can usually get a designer/architect to come out for a 1 -2
hour consultation for about $100 to $150 an hour or so (its been a
while so I'm not up on the cost). They'll usually scribble a rough
layout on paper that is well worth the money. Not a detailed plan of
course, but it can give you a starting point.

So you could consider this as a start just to give an overall idea. Short of hiring someone, if you're trying to design the yard yourself with the help of this forum, you probably need to isolate the yard into smaller sections - I doubt that the professionals are going to give you a detailed plan for the entire yard, but they may help you with manageable sections. In which case, I think that they suggest that you make an individual post for a particular section.

And, if you're trying to actually design it yourself, I'd suggest that you first identify the specimen elements that you need and must have. Include in that the birch tree that is already there, and since that one neighbour's tree to the right seems predominant, then it is also a specimen element that needs to be taken into account - it is essentially part of the plan even though you'd rather it not be there. Not sure if the right-hand neighbour also has other trees that are predominant - can't exactly see from the picture. The larger specimen elements should have some separation between them - they shouldn't be side by side.

I think that it is fine to have one NS, but I just wouldn't place it right beside the birch - I'd have it back in some way closer to the shed depending on the wettness in that area.

Next you have to implement some groupings of plants in between the specimen elements as opposed to lots of other single elements. You can have several groupings in between specimens. You can also have smaller specimen elements in between the larger specimens, like a single shrub that you only have one of. And you have to establish a gentle flow between the elements. Not that you necessarily have to create a garden bed, but visually there should be a flow that infers a garden bed.

Your last two paragraphs really made me understand where this could go. Thank you so much.. I feel like I can tackle this with a bit more confidence. It makes a lot of sense! I am still going to post some more pics and a sketch/design on graph that illustrates my current inventory of plants..

I'll check back soon..

Much appreciated!

Just came across these beauty blueberry... Vaccinium corymbosum

I can see a nice grouping of 3 along that side fence.. or possibly the back b/w the birch and whatever I plant ultimately plant around the shed! They would get more sun along the side of the property (6 to 8 hours of continuous for sure) whereas they'd only get perhaps 4 hours in that back fence location..

So many choices - this will be fun

A grouping of 3 of these would be a very nice alternative to a abies concolor along my side fence - only grow to about about 8 feet or so i think...

http://www.canadaplants.ca/display.php?id=61

Before I even calculate scale on graph paper and sketch something out, I want to think about the number of varieties I could incorporate along the side fence. My initial thinking is something like 5 or 7 variegated dogwoods toward the back of the line (where it slopes down and is quite moist), then perhaps a "specimen" like a redbud or a serviceberry shrub (or can I plant this in a grouping? Not sure as the size of these shrubs around here seems to be under 10' but the literature states that they get to be 20' feet or more - then I could add a grouping of 3 with a burgundy/red color like the nine bark or similar, then I would follow this up with a grouping of 3 or 5 Highbush blueberry. I have to draw it out and figure out space but I am just thinking in terms of conceptualizing the flow between elements as you put it...

Is this too busy? Should I go for a more simple approach and work with no more than 3 or 4 shrubs? Maybe more of a receptive grouping?

First, I should say that I mentioned the idea of "specimen" because
in your inspiration picture #3, it seems to have a number of what I'd
gather to be large trees with the spruce, maybe a maple tree (not sure),
but then a bunch of smaller shrubs with the dogwood, and ninebark, and
then a smaller tree with the Japanese Lilac? on the far right . Usually
a single tree on its own would be the specimen, and in many
professional plans, the specimen would be flanked by groupings of much
smaller plants/shrubs.

So you don't have to have "specimen" items,
but if you decided to have a single redbud in a hedge border, you'd
probably want it to stand out, hence be the specimen, and you wouldn't
want it to be lost in a sea of shrubbery. In the inspiration picture
#3, the Japanese Lilac is a beautiful small tree on its own, but once
the nearby spruce trees grow, you really won't be able to see it as a
beautiful specimen tree.

Say your specimen is the redbud. (We
can't grow them in Ottawa, so I'm not familiar other than they look
stunning on google). I gather that it is a relatively small tree (as
compared to maples). It seems to me that because it is such a stunning
tree and it is relatively small, you don't want to place the largest of the large shrubbery underneath it or right beside it.
Ninebark from what I've seen are quite large, 8feet or so (but maybe
there are dwarf varieties?), so I wouldn't put a grouping of ninebark
right nearby unless they can be maintained at about 3 or 4 feet, but I
like the ivory halo dogwoods because they are the smaller version of the
standard dogwoods. Where I live, the ivory halos are maybe 4 feet
high, so a nice height. And they are very easily trimmable. Again, I'm
not familiar with redbud, but I could suppose that a grouping of ivory
halo dogwoods might be nice on one side, and on the other side, another
similar sized shrub - hydrangeas?

I think you could also do
more than one redbud side by side, but I wouldn't do a redbud right
beside a serviceberry tree, especially if they have the same form and
the same projected height+width. I'm not sure of the mature size of the
service berry - I've only ever noticed them in my area as 10 feet high
shrubs, but I see them on the internet as small trees. If they grow to
a similar pattern as the redbud in your area, then I'd separate the
redbud from the serviceberry and consider the serviceberry as its own
"specimen".All of this is not to say you can't have 8-10 feet high shrubs - it is just that they should be visually separated from the
specimen tree, especially if the specimen tree is relatively speaking,
small. If it is a huge maple tree, no problem. So if it were me, and I had a redbud, I'd probably flank it on either side with relatively small shrubs, and then go for the larger 8-10 feet high shrubs like ninebarks.

I don't think the blueberry shrubs can grow where I live, so I'm not familiar with them. But so far it sounds like you've started to simplify your plan and it sounds good. You might want to think about working in some evergreen along the right side of the property - you had mentioned a fir tree at one point. I don't know the mature size, but if large, maybe it could be a "specimen" along the side, but closer to the house.

One other thing you could consider in the future if privacy is quite an
issue, especially if you desire more privacy while you are in the pool?
is to consider to increase the depth/width of portions of the existing
bed that is beside the pool. Just by increasing the depth/width of your
existing bed gives you a bit better ability to stagger plants to give a
bit of dappled privacy as shown here. Instead of one emerald green
cedar, a group of 3 or 5 staggered gives some semblance of privacy at
the pool - obviously not complete privacy. Similarly, a grouping of 2
or 3 standards as shown below - for example "dwarf korean lilac
standards" are really nice beside a patio - the stem part of the
standard is maybe 4 feet high and the ball part is maybe about 5 feet
diameter or so. Then use groundcover like a low purple-flowered perennial
geranium underneath the standards to fill in.

I researched the redbud some more.. not sure if I want it. I may instead go with Serviceberry - perhaps three of them in a straight line? Or I could do triangle formation too. I would love to get an evergreen in the mix. Either I go small or go for a specimen. I am thinking either a single fir/spruce that is smaller than a NS (maybe concolor candicans) or three of these in a row as they only grown to about 8 feet at maturity and are very slow growing:

abies lasiocarpa glauca compacta

Does it matter if the evergreen is significantly taller? I wouldn't think so.. I could plunk down some cupressina too... fast growing and could act as a screen... or a few hertz wintergreen? i am just worried that they may cast a significant shadow and I don't want to end up creating a shady spot behind the shrubs. They would get sun after 11ish though as the sun would hit that spot after that time for the balance of the afternoon... I am drawing a sketch and with try to demonstrate what I am attempting to create..

As for the pool area, I just put that bed in around the pool... i like the ability to see out (vista) to the yard from the pool... two of the stubs in there should get a fair bit larger (one is a blacklace elderberry...) - so for now I will just work on side and back..

If I plant serviceberry at the side does it stop me from planting several at the back b/w the birch and whatever I plant as a specimen neat the shed? I've also consider bridal wreath spirea back there as they are pretty easy and would be a nice screen

I think its okay.

I missed your comments above about the serviceberry and the fir, etc. You should probably talk to some of the experts at the garden centers in your area, or pay for a 1 or 2-hour consultation would be helpful for you as you have a very large property, and you're trying to solve a lot of issues with complex requirements.

I haven't seen any fir/spruce that only grow to 8 feet - maybe they aren't available where I am, or they are newer varieties - I just haven't seen anything like that.

Your question Does it matter if the evergreen is significantly taller? I'm not sure what you're asking, but if you have 3 serviceberry trees in a line, and then an evergreen that is taller, it should be pulled out and away from the serviceberries.

Sorry to keep bugging you! Another question or two as I plan - As I plan out the sketch on graph paper, a couple of questions come to mind. Do all these shrubs need to be planted in a "triangular" formation for best results? For instance, should I plant a diabolo nine bark in 3s in a triangle, or 5 dogwoods with 3 in the back 2 in the front and so on? Or are there situations where a straight line of 3 plants across works best? I suppose it depends on the size? I am thinking about said shrubs as well as other candidates, like say 3 dwarf conifers or arborvitae. I see a number of examples around town where the straight line of planting along a border seems to work b/c the plants we are dealing with are often mounded and/or somewhat irregular and they are of varying sizes too.. I am thinking I can do both straight plantings and triangular formations..

One thing I find a bit frustrating when trying to draw an overview sketch out on graph paper is that the stated max width of these plants seems to vary some. Some sources state that diabolo grows as wide as 8' while other state 6'

For the right side, I think either the compact spruce or serviceberry would work, but it would be best to limit that side to one taller plant type and maybe two groups of shorter shrubs. So that would mean choosing between the serviceberries and the compact spruce for the taller 'specimen' plant that might ultimately reach 15-20 ft and keeping the rest of the shrubs to around 6 ft or below. (I think this is consistent with what daylily is also saying.) What's nice about doing a grouping of a single species is that it reads as a single element from a distance. So, you could do either a single specimen of the tallest plant or a group, depending on how much space you are trying to occupy.

On the question of straight lines vs. staggered (triangle) plantings, it also depends on space and the effect you are trying to achieve. Straight lines will take up less space in the yard, but will also have a more formal look and may not screen as well since they have less depth. But screening effectiveness also depends on the form of the plant. So, you have to weigh all these factors (space available, desired amount of screening, type of plant, desired degree of formality) to decide what is best for your situation.

As for mature plant sizes to use on your plan, there's definitely variability in the information that's out there. If you see 6' one place and 8' in another, you could split the difference and use 7. It also might depend on whether you want the plants overlapping when they've grown in, or if you want space between them. Go for the smaller diameter if you want them to overlap (but don't get carried away and do less than that or you might run in to the overgrowth problem.)

@Atmoscat, I am even seriously considering the abies cupressina - Everything I've read about NS has been largely positive and the cupressina offers a beautiful narrow/tall specimen that could really add a punch - I think.. I am moving away from the idea of serviceberry in that location. I love the shrub but you cant have everything and maybe it'll work somewhere else with some other project. I have narrowed my list for the right side fence to group of 7 or so variegated dogwoods (leaning toward Cornus alba Elegantissima), 3 to 5 diabolo ninebark, the cupressina (abies planted just past mid-way point, closer to the house). Then I need to fill in the remaining space but I am not sure with what at this point. As Daylily and yourself have pointed out, I should keep this simple and not over-plant varieties then create a bit of a jumbled mess... But as the border inches closer to the house, the landscape become less visible. I have to take picture in order to make that clear. We spend most of our time closer to the pool on the other side. We can't really see that corner that well but I still want to screen it and may go with arborvitae (wintergreen or just plain old occidentalis) because the deep end of the pool is exposed to this neighbor.

I should explain why we are so eager to screen this spot. They have a very odd and what my wife describes as a creepy son in his mid to late 20s still living at home who sits on the deck that overlooks our property. He sits there all day throughout the late spring and summer and smoke away. We are not comfortable with him peering into out lot. Secondly, their house is quite unsightly! So I am quite eager to get some screening in particularly in that spot... he doesn't venture into the rest of his yard, fortunately. Abies cuppressina makes a lot of sense and at that point in the property, shouldn't even be part of the aesthetic design b/c we look out onto only 2/3 of the lot with sight lines flowing toward the back.. basically, the corner is hidden from sight (but not for him!). But I do use the whole lot and my daughter does too so her and I see him and the unsightly home. The cupressina is not the cheapest choice - the arborvitae would be by far the cheapest, which is why I am thinking about putting a couple of those in that corner. I am going to take a pic to demonstrate when I get home tonight of that right side border from a different angle.

thanks

In your previous comment ... "I am thinking I can do both straight plantings and triangular formations.." - I'd agree that you can do this. In the link I gave earlier to the thread where Yardvaark gave a sample design for a privacy hedge, he had some plant groupings, along with some that were planted in a straight line.