It is sad when big trees come down for a good reason. My neighbor had some very large Elm trees that had to come down (they were rotting inside and it was only a matter of time). I cannot imagine taking down healthy trees for no reason.

Another post where a knuckle sandwich would come in handy!

We live on a medium-sized city lot. In the summer we can barely see the street, because of the 4 large trees in the front yard. The apple tree right on front of the living room window is like a miniature nature preserve: in addition to the resident red squirrels, sparrows, chickadees, and fiches that live there, this spring the whole tree was pollinated by a pair of hummingbirds, and yesterday I saw a cardinal (unusual in my area). Each spring the tree comes alive with a migrating flock of Cedar waxwings - they stay for 1 or 2 days before moving on to Canada.

I see all this without getting up off the couch - I watch the window more than I watch TV.

Then there are the 30 or so trees we've planted in the back yard since we bought the house new (we planted trees before we planted grass). We have some grass, but much of the back yard is a lovely shade garden. I would not give up my backyard forest for anything!

Our neighbors did the same thing. Husband said he likes the "golf course look." I guess he was talking about only the fairways since most golf courses have beautiful plantings on their courses. Sigh. They took down every old oak and large tree on their property destroying a beautiful woodland garden in half of their backyard area that was planted by the previous owner.

The recent heavy rains caused some erosion (we are all built on heavy arell/marine clay) since there is nothing to hold the soil any more other than grass. Sheesh. Additionally, his property drains into our yard. at certain points, so we get all those chemicals he uses. Aarrgghh.

Oh, and he dumps his grass clippings over his fence into a wooded area (belongs to another neighbor) that has an intermiitent stream leading to a wetland. Lovely. ;((

Our former neighbors dropped by last week to chat and proudly announced that they just took down the last two trees in their backyard and were now completely tree-free. No more pollen in their pool. They also hacked back every limb on their neighbor’s trees that hung over the fence line. When we still lived there they used to hint that one of our trees used to throw some shade on them in the morning - from across the street.

Because of mature trees to the east, my house is in shade in summer until about 11:00 and back in shade from the southwest/west by 4:00. With windows open at night and closed during the day, the house feels air conditioned. And visitors assume it is. Seeing houses baking in the sun makes me feels so sorry for the inhabitants.

And in winter the sun pours in through the windows on the south where there are no trees.

We have problems in Connecticut due to ledge consequently the trees grow on the surface. Every time a Nor'easter hits our area the trees go down. This is especially true of pine trees. I had a very large oak tree that was close to my house that luckily fell away from my house when Hurricane Sandy hit. My neighbor had one that destroyed his garage. Removing a tree is not always bad thing.

It does seem the more knowledge one gains about trees, the greater the tolerance for having them next to the house. I drove by this home last week in Rice Lake, WI, and couldn't help but wonder about the folks who owned the property. They obviously have a high tolerance for having large trees near their home!

Nice mature trees! Looks like they're all leaning towards the owners house. Maybe that's just the way the picture makes it look?

I understand everyone's desire for trees but if a tree is on someone else's property, the property owner has every right to do with it as he/she pleases. Additionally, sometimes people cut down trees because they don't have the time/energy for the maintenance. A lot of my elderly neighbors cut their trees down because they don't have family nearby to rake leaves, do maintenance pruning, and are not willing or can't afford to pay landscapers to come to their properties.

I guess it all depends on what you are used to :-) Here in the PNW, it is not at all uncommon for our large native trees (Doug firs, western red cedar, bigleaf maples - all of which can exceed 100' in height) to be in close proximity to houses. In fact, other than some newer zero lot line developments, it would be unusual to find a residential property - even very urban ones - that lacked one of these huge trees!! There is an 80'+ Doug fir only 20' away from my entry and more that encircle the property. So I tend to be less alarmed by large trees in close proximity to a residence than those who may live in more open, less heavily treed areas of the country :-) The photo shown by maackia would be commonplace here. As long as the trees are healthy and well maintained, there is minimal concern.

btw, many of these trees predate the residence by a good number of years. Most are preexisting natives and not intentionally planted. And at least in my area, existing trees on a property are not necessarily left to the owners' discretion as to removal. In some cases a permit is required for any removal and any removed trees must be replaced with an approved substitute!

Depending on how long it takes before we reach the complete point of no return on climate change, and how the spread of tree killing pests shakes out - what trees aren't dead from disease/bugs may not be viable options in the environment 'new normal'. But we need trees to keep this planet habitable so I am not about to suggest chopping down trees all willy nilly like based on what someone tells a new homeowner to do. Cut down diseased and dead trees, trees that are damaging the foundational structures of the home they had some misguided person plant them too close to, and replace them with suitable trees in a safe non-risky place - whether it's in your yard or in the areas burned/cut for timber/etc. Go Earth! ;)

Regardless of how close they were planted, tree roots do not damage a structurally sound (no cracks or fissures) concrete foundation. They do have an ability to lift concrete slabs, driveways or sidewalks, depending on the tree, but they will not penetrate solid concrete. That is a gardening myth!! Foundation damage is 99% of the time attributed to soil settling or subsidence, not roots.

Gardengal, I do not agree with your statement that trees can't hurt foundations. If a large species is too close, just like roots can lift a slab, roots can also push on a foundation wall with enough force to crack it ... though they are not penetrating/entering the foundation per se. I've seen situations with live oak here in Florida that caused me to resolve never to put one within 20' of a house. As it is our most ubiquitous large landscape tree, it is used in all manner of situations where it will break curbs and lift pavement. It is a big boy and it's roots spread outward similar to its above ground branching structure.

"... cutting down anything that might visually compete with your house is puzzling." It depends on what actually qualifies to satisfy that statement. So many plants are placed in ignorance by novices. With them, there seems to be reasons aplenty for relocation or removal. But well placed, appropriate trees in the yard ... it doesn't seem like there's ever a reason to remove them so long as they remain healthy. But while a landscape writer may have never claimed a tree's removal is justified if it "competes" with the building, it is certainly a general principle of art that if one wishes an element to show, it shouldn't be covered too much, but instead the covering limited to what is artistically tasteful. I know I'm always preaching about limbing up trees in the front yard to some degree, and it is expressly because low hanging branches cross the line into not being artistically tasteful, IMO. Not every last branch in every last case ... but the majority in most cases where they screen much of the first floor level. 99% of they time they exist not because of purposeful consideration ... but because of common neglect. People are too busy and often ignorant of what they should do to maintain the yard. I was there once, too.

Re: leaf cleanup. I never rake leaves, just mow them into the turf (mulching mower) or collect them in the mower bag to put on my gardens. I suppose not everyone has a mulching mower, but even before I had one, mowing them worked for me. Just have to do it before they are too thick on the ground.

When we lived in SoCal we had a neighbor who discovered that one of the trees that the developer had planted back in 1978 had found its way under and roots seeking water worked their way up through cracks due to settling in the concrete slab - when they went to replace the carpet. Yeah, that must have been an interesting experience:

Carpet installers: Hey...um...there's a tree who wants to move into your house.

Homeowners: Uh...no?

Carpet installers: too late!

;)

Yard, I think you overestimate the power of a root :-) When they encounter a solid surface, they just change direction, not bore through it!! Unless it is a pretty flimsy foundation construction to begin with. They are simply seeking water and nutrients, which are not present in concrete to any significant degree. Even the ISA and the Morton Arboretum support this contention, as does this quote from a foundation structural engineering company: "To be fair, tree roots themselves are not the direct cause of foundation damage, though many homeowners believe they are. Instead, the changes in the condition of the soil are what actually cause most of the damage to home foundations." Extremely easy to find additional documentation to support this.

"I know I'm always preaching about limbing up trees in the front yard to some degree, and it is expressly because low hanging branches cross the line into not being artistically tasteful, IMO. Not every last branch in every last case ... but the majority in most cases where they screen much of the first floor level. "

And this I contend is purely a matter of personal taste, not any sort of defined landscape design principle! And is also very situational. Different strokes for different folks.

My MIL had several large trees come down on her property a couple of months ago during a storm. One came through the roof and did a lot of damage to the house. Her insurance company, STATE FARM, for any of you out there who might have this company, is reimbursing her for less than half of what it is costing her to repair the damage. They offered her $400 to have the kitchen repainted, including the cabinets. $1100 for the dining room, foyer, and living room. They will only pay for the back half of the roof up to the ridge because they said the front half was not damaged, though she was required by code to replace the whole thing. The deck was totaled. Again, less than half the cost to replace.

The tree removal people told her upfront that emergency rates were double when they took the tree off her house. $19,000.

We all just spent last weekend painting because she hasn’t got the funds. I painted the cabinets myself. She’s in her late 80s and her savings were just about wiped out. Her agent is unavailable when they call. The adjuster is a b***ch. Check your policies.

I love trees as much as anyone, but sometimes they are a threat.

" they just change direction, not bore through it!!" Yes. I understand. But when they first change direction they are a hair diameter. They remain in that position, while growing and lengthening ... and they also begin to grow in diameter ... from a hair to 8" (or whatever) and it is this increasing diameter that pushes on a foundation wall exactly like it pushes on a slab, if it is under it. Over time, a live oak planted a few feet from a foundation will have enormous diameter roots in that zone and just about anything man made will not escape unharmed.

" And this I contend is purely a matter of personal taste " And we could likewise say that hair hanging in someone's face is personal taste, too. But regardless of what we say, there is a general consensus that finds too much hair hanging in front of the face, unappealing. There will always be dissent but I will always weigh in that too much is, too much, especially if it is the result of neglect, which is what most of it is. Purposeful screening -- in spite of the fact that I may not personally like it -- I'm not against. Yep. Sometimes I'm not against things I don't like! About 9.99 times out of ten, screening of the first floor zone looks better when it comes from the ground, not when it hangs from the sky. It's just an observation I've made.

Homeowners insurance adjusters are working for the company and shareholders, who make more money the fewer claims they have to pay out and in reducing how much of the claims they do pay will pay.

Our basement is currently waiting to be restored - the adjuster has to tell us what they're going to pay so we can decide which of the contractors we have gotten estimates from we choose for the project. Luckily the carpet and LVP is barely a year old so the depreciated amount isn't much - and that the damage was caused by an unexpected and sudden event not originated from outside the house. We have replacement cost coverage insurance - but no insurer is going to pay for the full cost of a claim because that's just how it works. The time to be a strong self-advocate in your homeowners claim is through the very beginning and don't simply accept a check without getting some expert advice of your own, estimates from contractors not recommended by the insurance company (what contractor is going to admit that they will be looking for ways to cut corners in order to keep getting business referrals as long as they do the job for the amount the insurer pays?)...Back in my first couple years of college I had my only car accident and the insurance company wanted to cut me a check for $900 (after I paid the $500 deductible and the car was seriously damaged but not enough to declare totaled) with nothing for the medical expenses from the accident. I got ahold of my friend's dad who is a lawyer and for the cost of a cup of coffee he walked me through how to get the best settlement amount and had me give them his office number should they have had any questions or issues arise. They paid a good bit more than that $900 and I learned some valuable things along the way. Insurance companies aren't known to be 'shameable' through naming them and complaining anywhere that one can find to complain about them online. They aren't on 'your side', and you're not 'in good hands' - they're a business who does what businesses are legally allowed to do in the industry they work within.

I was recently in Portland and spotted this behemoth, which I think is a Giant Sequoia. I dont know what else it could be. I have a high tolerance for large trees near the house, but I have to admit this would be intimidating.

Maackia, I was in Portland last summer and saw the same scenario in my son's neighbor's yard. Forgot about that. I think the picture has great potential charm, and also great potential fear. I would plan on selling the house before it became my problem. But that's like trying to time the stock market. If that was my house I'd be wishing that there was an extra 20' of separation.

Portland is a great city to get your tree geek on.

That house would have to be a dispensary for me to live there.

My understanding is that trees get much larger in PNW due to lack of storms. My personal opinion is that my yard should look like a bowl with the largest specimens away from structures, and smaller trees/shrubs near the house.

I cut large catalpa, silver maple, white poplar and cottonwood that were hanging over the house (I think original 1960s owners wanted 'instant shade') and replaced with redbud, white cedar, magnolia, hazelnut, fruit trees and shrubs

When hubby & I were house-hunting less than a year ago, I made it clear to our Realtor that mature trees were a must. She seemed to think that I was a little crazy in that regard, but she did show us what we wanted to see. In fact, the first house we looked at was the one we wound up buying. We love our shady yard, and so do the birds, squirrels, chipmunks, and rabbits.

And yes, I am well aware of the risk of a tree or limb falling on the house; it's happened to people around here on occasion. It's simply a risk I'm willing to take.

Elaine, that is a lovely home.

This is just a personal feeling, but we, as a society, have become less comfortable with the natural world. The thought of having a child venture into the woods by themselves is likely unsettling to many people.

As a young boy I’d spend weeks each summer staying at my uncle’s farm. It was a classic Wisconsin dairy farm where they milked about a hundred cows. One of my tasks was to get the cows from the pasture each morning, which included a wooded forty. The June mornings could be quite cool, with heavy dew that seemed to soak my boots. Do kids still do these sort of things?

Huge trees & residential landscape areas are not compatible unless one is prepared for the high risks and costs associated with them. They grow, they drop debris, and the roots find your wallet eventually. get rid of them.

I learned the expensive way, by removing 30 100ft tall redwoods after they destroyed my pool, irrigation, and sewer pipes. But thankfully i got rid of them before the rotten ones fell on the school bus stop in front of my house. $50k cost was a wake up call.

I suggest being realistic; growing appropriately sized vegetation. Now I've got 50+ fruit trees... and my house looks bigger too!

The kinds of trees in maackia's post look so surreal to us in the upper midwest, where a tree that is 30" dia. and 100 ft tall is a real giant.

I suppose when you live somewhere all your life and know the history of damages caused by such trees and all the circumstances involved, you probably realize that you are in no more danger having a behemoth like that next to your house than you are entering the nearby freeway with all the texting idiots behind the wheel.

But these days, in our attempts to create a 'perfect world', we try to eliminate anything that is possibly dangerous, even when the chances of it happening is are very remote. And even that varies according our individual tolerance level and fears of such things happening.

As I had hoped to point out earlier in this thread, I think this is a situation that has a lot of regional permutations :-) As I as driving down my road yesterday or the day before, this thread came to mind and I was wondering how other posters would react to it. It is much like driving down a narrow paved road in the middle of a forest!! Towering native evergreens border the road, surround the gardens and appear here and there in gardens very close to the houses. And most of these predate the houses by multiple decades.

And this is extremely commonplace here so the 'rule' rather than the 'exception' :-) Very different from the placement of trees and homes in my admittedly limited experience with midwestern landscapes.

It really boils down to what one is used to and what is common to their locale. Which may be why I tend not to be overly alarmed by trees planted in close proximity to structures. If I lived somewhere else where this was not the norm or that experienced things like tornadoes or hurricanes, I might hold a different viewpoint :-)

I personally don't like the look of homes being totally dwarfed out by gigantic trees, like the photos maackia posted. I don't think it adds any curb appeal at all.

One problem is you would have to have at least a 200 ft clearance from these large trees. In some areas, this would mean clear cuttings everything around power lines, houses and roads. It would change the landscape entirely, more moonscape in nature. C'mon, life is dangerous, no matter what we do. I don't condone 'living dangerously' when one can easily change the circumstance, but clearing all the historic giant trees of the west is not an option imo.

ilovemytrees(5b/6a Buffalo, NY), then I suggest you do not visit the PNW :-) I doubt it would be to your taste (although most visitors to this area find it visually stunning with regards to the vegetation and scenery).

And "curb appeal" will also have a regional focus as well. If the houses are set far enough back from the road as to not be readily visible from the road, then "curb appeal" as most approach it is pretty far down the line of landscape design priorities. It's important to understand that not all situations will be the typical suburban residential lot size of approx. 8500sf.

Homeowners in a region with long, intense summers and low rainfall would give anything to have the conifer in Maackia's photos. Curb appeal be damned when a tree shades the house during the hottest part of the day. The consensus in this area: If you don't want the upkeep that comes with a majestic live oak or American elm, let someone who appreciates such treasures buy the house. Cut them down and you'll have a lynch mob on your hands.

Gardengal and Irving Ragweed, I like tall trees around homes, like maples etc that compliment and shade the homes. It's the enormous-sized trees like redwood trees, where I think there's diminishing returns when it comes to shade and curb appeal.

OMG!! Is that a real fox?? Would love to see some of that sort of wildlife around but alas.....it is only the cat-eating coyotes :-( And deer. Or garbage-rummaging raccoons.

Redwoods and other large conifers can compliment a house just as well as a maple can. It just depends on the setting. I'd just have to assume that these sorts of aversions are simply because they are not in a context the responder is familiar with. My niece and her DH live on a large and very expensive property that is a very park-like setting. Zero curb appeal (there is a good 1/2 mile between the street and the house) and with multiples of all three types of redwood., all well-established and very large: giant Sequoia, coast redwood and an entire grove of golden dawn redwoods (Metasequoia 'Ogon'). And scores of various deciduous shade trees as well. Probably one of the most stunning local private landscapes I have seen.

Context/setting is everything :-)

Yes the fox is real!..I see it several times a month..(no doubt comes more) who knew they eat dry roasted unsalted peanuts?..

"cabin in the woods"..

LOL!! only if your "cabin" is somewhere close to 10,000sf and has 6 bedrooms and 7 baths :-) These folks are not hurting for $$ but they do entertain alot and also host large family gatherings. There were almost 80 of us there for a 4th of July celebration.

Right now there is a large gaping hole off to one side of the property as they are installing a swimming pool. And the exact siting of the pool was very carefully undertaken with respect to the root system of one of the towering giant sequoias.

LOL! Do I sound like Hyacinth Bucket - "the one with a Mercedes, swimming pool, sauna and room for a pony"??

we have 4 bedrooms 3 bathrooms..IMO too big for 2 people..but we liked the lot, the kit and garage.."cabin in the woods" is how I jokingly describe our house..I care more about my garden than my house..sad but true..

Seems to me the key to living successfully with trees on urban/suburban lots is to cultivate a relationship with an arborist. I treasure my arborist because I treasure the trees on my small PNW urban lot. At master gardener clinics where I volunteer we receive frequent inquiries about ailing trees. It's often obvious that the tree has been neglected and/or butchered over the years and is now in decline. Removing a large tree costs $$$$. Keeping it healthy costs $$. For me it's definitely worth it.

"Husband said he likes the "golf course look." I guess he was talking about only the fairways since most golf courses have beautiful plantings on their courses. Sigh. They took down every old oak and large tree on their property destroying a beautiful woodland garden in half of their backyard area that was planted by the previous owner."

And that kind of humancentric, bulldozer mentality is exactly what has killed off HALF of this planet's flora and fauna in just the past 40 years!!!

Two million acres, an area the size of Yellowstone National Park, are lost to development each year
We have converted 62,500 sq miles (40 million acres) to suburban lawn in the U.S.
Because 54% of the U.S. is now in cities or suburbs, and 41% is in agriculture, biodiversity will have to survive in those areas if it is going to survive at all.

96% of all terrestrial birds rear their young on insects. No insects; no baby birds.
90% of all insects that eat plants require native plants to complete their development.

So, here's more of the solution: Brad Lancaster's permaculture home in Tucson AZ

"I learned the expensive way, by removing 30 100ft tall redwoods after they destroyed my pool, irrigation, and sewer pipes. But thankfully i got rid of them before the rotten ones fell on the school bus stop in front of my house. $50k cost was a wake up call."

Or more simply, people just shouldn't be building their houses in the middle of a full-grown forest to begin with. Isn't the loss of 30 massive 100' trees, and all the wildlife they supported...the real wake-up call here?

It's like I said, some people think they are doing society a favor by doing something they think is making things safer. Cutting down trees that are hundreds, even thousands of years old is not helping anyone. We have to breath man, we have to breath.

I've noticed that the people who remove all of their trees never go outside..they don't plant anything..their goal seems to be a barren lot..they stay cooped up inside in air conditioning because their surroundings are unpleasant..just an observation..

blakrab NoTex in my case, either myself or the prior property owner planted the trees - approx. 1/2 acre. The land was foothill / grassland with few trees before it was developed. Its a residential area now and huge trees are out of scale. unfortunately that error has been repeated all over the area, its only a matter of time before people realize their mistakes.

A certified arborist explained - correctly so - that landscaping and redwoods are not compatible. You have to choose one. I chose 50+ fruit trees over redwoods. (and so I must spend time outside). I am fortunate to have a 50 ft. valley oak in the back corner - in my neighbor's yard. Away from all the homes and pipes. Beautiful.

I don't have anything against large trees in a forest. But in a residential area they bring risks. You are seeing some of those risks sadly displayed with the massive fires burning not too far north of me.

Perhaps the problem is not too few trees. But too many people? That is a topic for another forum.

molewacker..I lived in Napa and San Mateo CA years ago (79-84)..Napa's much prettier..the peninsula had too many people and not enough trees even then!..what I see on the news about conditions in CA makes me sad..as you said a topic for another forum..

Nicholsworth ... i loved indy when i was there many years ago (apologies in advance for this off topic venting post, but there is a segway).... but alas you would not recognize the san Mateo and peninsula area now. Total gridlock. The local cities allowed thousands and thousands of offices to be built (greedy for revenue), but without a balance of housing. So most commute times have increased more than 30 to 45 minutes. Menlo park to san Carlos takes an hour.

The ground still shakes from time to time and the huge protected redwoods sway amongst the office buildings.

molewacker..those majestic trees living in a concrete jungle can't be good for them..your description of the peninsula sounds hideous..what a shame..do you know if there's still eucalyptus trees along the El Camino in Burlingame?..they had an exotic tropical feel to me..I haven't been in CA since 2003..it's unlikely that we will ever make it back..Indy is decent in many ways but the winters are nasty..