Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, nice try Mike, but those are not the right kind of trees. See, up North, we had <mumbles native northern tree names under breath> and I do not see any in those pictures.
You're not up North. We also don't have all the same kinds of trees you find in CA or AZ or South America.
Nice photos, Mike. Are they of your listings??? Just kidding! However, if you want to take more photos...I do have a couple in Cary and Holly Springs!!!
As for you "finding" these trees...who lost 'em in the first place?!!
Folks buy 3000+ SF homes on 5000 SF lots, with driveways, patios, and garages that leave little room for real trees. Small ornamentals become the replacement for shade trees.
The detached rear garages and service alleys that people buy to avoid a front entry garage cover enough of the surface to prevent tree survival unless the lot is huge.
Production builders have little incentive to invest extra money in saving a couple of trees on a small lot. It is more expensive, and often the trees saved are junky, to be kind. And people seem to prefer barren landscapes. As long as barren landscape sells, why should the builder or developer bother with extra effort and expense to save trees. Cheaper to slap in a couple of 2" caliper trees at landscaping time than to squeeze a big house on a small lot with trees in the way.
Much of the area was timbered in the last century, so there is little inventory of desirable hardwoods in areas that are being developed.
I have seen some abysmal trees left in place in the name of saving trees.
They become a liability to the new homeowner.
Much of what is currently being developed is former farmland that has no trees, or is covered by nearly worthless scrub pine trees.
If one wants a lot with trees, one should buy a lot with trees, design a home to fit the lot and existing desirable trees, and then contract to have those trees saved during construction.
Typically, that would mean buying at least 1/3 acre, driving up prices.
Buying an old home and knocking it down is one way to get a lot with trees.
Or, one might reconsider new construction and invest in available existing housing stock, complete with shade trees. Larger lots in great locations would be part of the rewards of doing so.
Thanks for the great pictures Mike. One of the reasons we bought our house in Cary (new construction) was that it was on a wooded lot. We traded having a builder we weren't too impressed with (Pulte) for a wonderful lot that isn't easy to come by in our price range in Cary. Houses that back up to other people's houses aren't for me. I think it's my CT upbringing with 2 acre zoning.
Or they do what the two latest buyers on our street here did in ITB in Raleigh. Buy a 1 1/2 acre lot, take down the house, come in with a bulldozer, take EVERY TREE OFF THE LOT except for a couple of pines along the sides, cover the entire lot with house or hardscape and replant small ornamental trees. Then tell me how they had to own on this street cause it was "just like living in the country with all the trees"!
That seems to be the problem with ITB right now. So many are buying the small lots with the small houses that had no garages and tearing them down. The houses they are putting up are so large that they must make room for them by tearing down the trees. And, for the neighbors that weren't used to a house next door taking up all the room, their view is now obstructed. Therein lies the controversy.
Vicki
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.