Jacarandas aren't entirely reliable in Houston. If you want an exotic fast grower, you would do better with a purple or white orchid tree (Bauhinia) though they can get knocked down to the ground in a hard freeze. (They aren't *quite* as tender as the jacaranda.) I have seen orchid trees grow 4-5 feet in a year. The Princess tree (Paulownia) is also showy and grows fast, and should do well there, being more cold tolerant. Good shade trees might include Bradford pear, red oak and sycamore. Check out TAMU's site: http://texastreeplanting.tamu.edu/CustomSelector.aspx

Ah, okay... thank you Courtney. Yeah... the reason I wanted to delve a little is because there are some authors and well-meaning advocates who will take solid principles to the extreme, thus causing confusion. First... keep in mind (and some may not agree,) chemically speaking, there is little difference in 'synthetic' vs. 'organic' fertilizers. In most cases, the difference is only in 'form' and derivation. When we speak of nitrogen, we are really using the term as a shorthand for the many, many chemical forms that nitrogen can take. Some forms are indeed more 'available' to plants than others, but soil is a VERY complex environment. It's almost impossible to say that a fertilizer, by it's very nature (even if derived through 'synthetic' means,) is 'bad'. The processes and reactions happening in soil at any given time are innumerable. What may make any fertilizer 'bad', is not so much in its form or derivation, but in its use. For example... nitrogen, as a nutrient, is extremely 'mobile'. In most forms, it is readily water-soluble. Adding more than the soil web can make use of at any given time pretty much guarantees that the excess will 'run-off' into the environment. There it combines with all the rest of the over-used water-soluble nutrients, and causes problems of unintended consequence. Other forms of nitrogen 'gas-off' easily, and thus over- or improper use is simply a waste of resources. Generally speaking, 'organic' derivations of most nutrients are more stable (forms that are less reactive, and less water-soluble) than synthetics. However, this is not written in stone by any means. In my thinking, it's not the nutrient form itself (organic vs. synthetic) that makes a fertilizer 'bad', but the processes from which it is derived. I personally do not buy synthetic fertilizers (I have no desire to contribute to the resource-intensive processes involved its production - especially when there are so many naturally formed sources which our society considers 'waste' products,) but I use it when it is available to me (like when I rescue it from someone who, like you thought to do with your organics, was otherwise going to throw it 'away'.) Again, it's not the chemical form itself that is necessarily bad, but its [over]use. Many 'purists' want to avoid whatever particular product they deem 'bad', and there are some extremely organic chemical forms of nutrients which, in any amount, are detrimental to (especially closed) environments, but most products are perfectly fine supplements when used properly. So, as others have said, I wouldn't be afraid to use any fertilizer - and I certainly wouldn't consider throwing it 'away' - but learning to use any product properly is what makes something 'good' or 'bad' - or 'right' or 'wrong' - to use in any given place at any given time. :-) All that said :-), it's good to see you taking due concern in your own efforts in your own yard. That's where 'the rubber meets the road', and where each one of us can make the most positive effect in our environment on a day-to-day basis. Good work!

Yes, I understand that the immediate intention for the play area is not to install a play set. But it's coming eventually and do you want the planting scheme to do dual duty by working now and also be ready for the future without any major alterations? Or do you want to subject yourself to the possibility of making a lot of changes when a play set is installed? A year is NOT a long time. As the play area develops, it is divided from the planting area with a bed line. The bed line is something to be figured out now, on the plan (as information about the play set/area becomes known.) The bed line divides places where people could possibly walk ("floors": lawn, low groundcover, mulch-only) from places where they couldn't ("walls" & "furniture": shrubs, perennials and tall groundcovers.) Trees ("ceilings") could be located in either areas Another possibility with the pitts is to cut them down and do a total rejuvenation -- where you control/shape their re-growth (which will happen very quickly since they already have developed root systems) -- and trim them so as NOT to reach way out into the yard. Let them grow as a much narrower hedge which is later trimmed into tree forms and reaches and screens above the fence. Based on some of the prior discussion, I'm going to speculate that one potential problem that could come up is not devoting enough depth to the planting beds (that are likely to surround most of the yard.) In general terms, this bed(s) ought to be allowed 6' depth as an average minimum. There are usually instances where it can easily be deeper, and possibly some instances where it can be shrunk to 4' when sacrifices must be made. Plants require space and trying to maintain a bed that is too skinny/shallow is not only difficult & more demanding of maintenance, but it doesn't look very good either. That's something to be mindful of.

@Yardvaark firstly, I can't thank you enough for taking the time to shop that out so I could see it and thoroughly explain your feedback, I really appreciate it. Second, I do have some follow up questions to your post, but if you don't have the time/desire to reply, I do completely understand. I am just grateful for the initial feedback and I don't want to capitalize on anyone's time. Regarding our existing elm tree...I'm totally seeing the need to limb this up but I admit it's also very scary as I don't want to damage the tree. We inherited it this way as the previous owners did minimal maintenance. I am frustrated because I asked the certified arborist we hired what approach we should take with this tree and she told me that trees like this should only be minimally pruned with the smallest cuts possible and you never want to take large limbs out. But looking over these pictures my eyes are opened to how ridiculously large it looks covering our deck! I am afraid that the limb to the right you mentioned, however, is integral the tree at this point and don't want to totally stress it. I wonder if we could keep these limbs but really thin them up? Is that even a thing? I can have someone else out to take a look. Harder right now as we are in lock down. We were also told never to prune our elm after March 31st to avoid attracting the beetle that can spread dutch elm disease, so I'm afraid we have to wait until next year to fix this either way! Here is a picture of the elm closer up: And from the backside of the tree, note the left limb that is the right side from the street view is pretty connected to the main trunk: And regarding the street tree and redbud on left, from the placement in your mock up that's pretty spot on to where I was imagining them, so I'm happy I'm on the right track there. I am, however having second thoughts about the redbud only because upon seeing it I wonder if a tree there would block too much of the house creating something similar to what I'm currently dealing with on the right (albeit smaller scale with the size of the Redbud vs Elm). I'm really intrigued by your suggestion to curve the walkway, as this section has been totally stumping me. My husband strongly objects to curves because of our houses squared edges, but I am trying to show him the value of juxtaposition and contrasting lines. I agree with not wanting to close in the sides of the walkway, although I'll admit I was considering adding a front border at the street and planting there, so I'll definitely reconsider this. The one thing I'm not sure of though is continuing the pavers in the planting area in front of the courtyard. I've had my mind set on creating a little separation and privacy in this area as right now we are super exposed to our street. I want to sit out here and see my neighborhood but not be totally open to it, if that makes sense. I envisioned plantings in front of the courtyard that would create this soft separation, my husband has even suggested a low fence. So I don't know if I love the whole area being hardscaped. I tried a photoshop app on my phone so please forgive my shoddy attempt at this, but this is what I had in mind for that dirt area in front of the courtyard (not these specific plantings, but something mixed like a low grass, perennial shrub, and maybe dwarf evergreen shrub. Keeping things 3-4' max height and natural looking). I would wrap it around the whole courtyard towards the house and in front of the left brick wall. The dirt area here separating the courtyard from the walkway is 5' deep: But this is where I'm not sure if the Redbud would block off that left side too much. I think I would love the view from inside, but street view does it cover this side of the house? And then I thought well what if I didn't do the Redbud there, but maybe a cedar screen with some plantings so it's less of an obstruction but still living: I had really wanted to put a Redbud somewhere, just love them. Maybe in the center with the screen in the courtyard? But from straight on, I'm afraid it would block the front door too much. I cheated it left and forward a little here, but maybe that doesn't matter.. And finally (yes!) do you have any other alternatives to grass in that middle section? I was hoping to remove the grass for something less water heavy since we are keeping the other lawn areas. I was also wanting to alleviate the water hitting the hardscape so much when watering as we have hard water and calcium deposits abound. But if the lawn would really be best to tie in the two sides of our property, so be it. It's already irrigated anyway! I know this is so much info. I am trying to be thorough but also without expectation as I understand this is a lot. We have already spent money on a consult and design advice with the arborist/designer so I was just hoping to have a better picture before paying for more. Thank you again!