You can easily check on mature spread for any of these. Add all that together and you can arrive a square footage requirement. But it is not quite that simple........some will not be very shade tolerant so you will have factor in any faster growth rate of the neighboring trees and their ability to shade out smaller or slower growing ones. And you also need to allow sufficient space surrounding each for proper air circulation to limit diseases and enough room for you to maneuver to water and attend to them.

And I wouldn't necessarily rely on pruning to keep size in check. Some will respond well to pruning; others not so much.

IME as a landscape designer, you would need at least 1/4 acre to accommodate ALL the trees and still have some semblance of aesthetic value and design sense. Sure you might be able to "cram" them into a smaller piece of real estate but I doubt you would be very pleased with the result.

I believe I may have mentioned this before but from a design perspective, you are going about this completely backwards. One designs a landscape according to the site..........it is extremely restrictive and virtually impossible to find a site to accommodate a preplanned design or an extensive, large plant collection. Not to mention that most folks consider the house itself as the primary motivation for purchase :-)

I say half acre counting the house, at least.

It all depends what youbare going for. Big spreading trees or the natural limbed up because of shad forest look.

Ok I will try to draw them up in excel to get the exact size. But the problem is many sites only state what their size will be in 10 years..not 50 years. So I need more info on that too. So faster growing trees like the larix, picea, and cryptomeria can be in the back I assume. But again like the cryptomeria, most sites say 40 feet tall but with such a fast growth rate I doubt it'll stay 40 feet in 50 years.. I have no idea how big it'll be at that time. Do you know?

I don't really care about the aesthetic looks tbh. As long as I have my favorite trees nearby me I'm happy :) Also when searching for homes my priorities are yard size, how much sun it'll get, and the amount of existing plants in that property. I don't really care about the home itself as long as its livable. I'm just weird like that :)

I also prefer the natural limbed up forest look(ex: hundreds and thousands of cryptomeria trees in a forest all growing so close to each other) but I don't know how to achieve that.

I just did the excel landscape calculations and turns out I would need a 130ftx130ft dimension to successfully fit all those conifers in the yard. Thats a lot of space... I guess I'm gonna have to invest real soon

"One designs a landscape according to the site..........it is extremely restrictive and virtually impossible to find a site to accommodate a preplanned design or an extensive, large plant collection."

Now there's some useful advice. A bit late for me, but sage.

"I say half acre counting the house, at least."

He will live in a treehouse.

I can say I was in my new place a couple of years before I really figured out how things needed to be for that particular yards. So expect moving and adding a few things after the fact.

I have several opinions on this topic . . .

Species trees are well suited for large arboreta, botanical gardens, and of course, forests. Generally, several hundred acres is required to best display them. Even then, some are simply packed in too tight. The best designs have the trees planted 100" apart at center, grouped in threes so they can grow healthily and be properly interpreted when mature.

Small landscapes and suburban lots are the domain of dwarf and miniature conifers (cultivars). With diligence, it's possible to find a tiny version of every species that you like, something that will never outgrow its given spot in the landscape.

I consider myself lucky. I'm working with almost an acre. On it, I've planted several hundred conifers; the vast majority being dwarfs and minis. Although I have several big trees, I consider as anchors to the big picture. I do confess, that if I were to start over, knowing what I know now. They likely wouldn't be there.

only state what their size will be in 10 years..not 50 years.

==>>> how about this time ...

divide the 120 year size by 10 .. to get the ANNUAL GROWTH RATE ... then multiply by 50 ..to get approximate size in 50 years ..

or.....

multiply the 10 year ESTIMATE by 5 ... to get approximate size in 50 years ..

the concept of basic mathematics is not going to change ... every month.. when you ask the same question ...

if you can track down a dwarf variety of any given telephone pole tree ... defined as one with a reduced annual growth rate ... then the 50 year potential is just that much smaller .. one might suggest.. half the former ...

e.g .. if a species grows one foot per year.. in 50 years.. it might be 50 feet tall ...

if you find a dwarf variety ... that grows only 6 inches per year.. then in 25 years ... it will only be 25 feet tall ... [and for the sake of this example, lets not argue that 6 inches per year.. does not define a dwarf growth rate ... we can get to that.. when this is fully ingrained... but for sake of that potential, see link below] ...

the problem is.. some of the species.. given happy circumstances.. can do 3 to 5 feet per year... [not necessarily those you list] ... and therein lies the problem ... when at some point.. you can NOT trim them into submission ... and then where are you????

ken

note the chart

http://conifersociety.org/conifers/conifer-sizes/

Mr. Heruga was confused yesterday when he thought that they slow down after 10 years, when, in fact, that's when they actually start to pick up steam. Ah well, this is intended to be a forum for higher learning.

I really would choose dwarf cultivars if I can but there aren't really any available for the big trees I listed. Technically there are dwarf ones but I need the appearance of that dwarf to look the exact same as the species. For example, larix kaempferi 'Blue dwarf' is a dwarf but is more globose and wider than taller which makes it different in appearance to the species, which is upright. Cryptomeria black dragon is a dwarf but it's form looks different than the species or Yoshino, in which their needles are more pendulous. Same with tsuga diversolia, there are no upright dwarves varieties. Loowit and minikin are globose. Or of anyone knows a dwarf that looks exactly like the species, please let me know.

Btw Gardengal or anyone who knows, so you say that putting conifers too close promotes disease because of poor air circulation. So does that mean conifer hedges are more prone to disease because they are so close to each other?

I know that my dream is unrealistic but once I decide on something, its very hard for me to get it out of my head. At least for a while. I also have a tendency to make a list and keep it that way(my plant list). But you are absolutely right about what you said... But I still don't understand why one shouldn't be able to live in one home their whole lives. Unless they are financial issues or work relocation, I don't see why anyone would want to go through the hassle of selling their home and finding another one. I've never bought a home in my life yet so I may not know stuff about this something but my basic thinking tells me moving homes for no reason is pointless.

"...but my basic thinking tells me moving homes for no reason is pointless."

Well, perhaps yes, but what's pointless to you may not be to others. The simple fact is that people don't usually live out their life in one home. You might, and I hope you do, but it's not common. Have you ever heard the term starter home?

You may want to get interested in miniature conifers, 8' or less in 96 years. You could grow them in containers and take them with you for life. And even bestow them to your estate.

'Moving homes for no reason' is, obviously, by definition, 'pointless'. But I doubt anyone does that. Most of us have a reason. Job, partner, health, school, kids, better investment potential or a better environment.

What happened to the totally Japanese garden?

Find a house. Like the house you buy. Landscape the space that cames with it.

by the way, it's not really feasible to say you could fit these plants in a space of a certain size based on mature sizes. you 'll want them to look like they were growing on a plain...not in a plantation, or even a forest, however spaced.

you have a lot of enthusiasm. keep it; you'll need it.

I just don't see why anyone would want to go through all the dreading process of selling their home, searching for a new one, making a budget..that nervous feeling of meeting new neighbors who could be bad people, making repairs in your new home, displaying everything... and all that especially when you are moving homes because 'you feel like it'. So I would never move homes unless I absolutely need to. Such a hassle imo.

Floral, when I said Japanese garden I don't really mean a traditional Japanese garden with all the gravel, rocks, bridges, and temples. I basically want a naturalized garden with all Japanese native plants. Not specifically a Japanese zen style garden.