Would you buy a home in a very heavily wooded neighborhood? (developer, room)
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.
We are in the both category. We bought nearly 20 acres that's wooded. We plan on building next year. We will clear enough space around the house so inside won't be so dark.
Neither one of us like the new subdivisions where it looks like houses were planted in fields.
I live on a wooded lot and have plenty of sunlight. As the sun lowers, the tall trees create a nice shade. No tree is near the foundation of the home so roots are not an issue. I've never paid anyone to prune or trim my trees and I rarely ever do it myself. Its a tree, it will take care of itself. If a tree falls in a storm, I cut it up into firewood.
Far more common in the last 20-40 years is that the developers have bought already cleared land.
Those lots used to be working farms of one sort or another but haven't been "forest" for 100-200 years.
Or... if you wait long enough the trees planted when the houses are built will mature into a nice canopy.
Just like right here with my 50yo house in what was once a cornfield.
In a few weeks I'll get to deal with the leaves.
That's correct. In the NE, usually new neighborhoods (subdivisions) are made of farmland, that was cleared 100's of years ago. Nobody is raising forests to put homes on.
They may cut down a few trees within a forest for new construction though, but that would get you a heavily wooded area.
I think most people in the NE, Midwest and NW prefer mature shade trees "propertly situated" on the property.
Having said this, there is a tendency on the part of many homeowners to not take into consideration the mature height and spread of all landscape material which eventually results in all sorts of compromises.
I like mature trees in a neighborhood, but wouldn't want it so heavily wooded that the house was dark.
I've never owned a house with mature trees until the one I'm in now -- a 1960 home with three large trees in the backyard. These trees were probably planted when the house was new. Two are in the back of the lot and provide shade for the doggies, screening from the view of neighbors' backyards, and beautiful fall foliage (and leaves). But there is also a large hemlock near the house. It drops a lot of "stuff", doesn't really provide any shade on my side, and doesn't provide any privacy as the branches have now grown too high. One arborist said I should have it cut down as it has a "low crotch" that could split and be dangerous in a storm (to my house or my neighbor's). However, I don't want to do it. Besides the expense, I love the look of the tree behind the house and being under its canopy -- evergreens remind me of being in the mountains. Another arborist thought it looked OK. I guess I should have a third opinion, but I really hate taking down a stately mature tree.
In my travels around the New York Metro area I have seen thousands of forested areas felled for cooker cutter subdivisions where pretty much every tree is cut down. Maybe the developer assumes most people don't want to live in a forest.
Our neighborhood is in a heavily wooded area. We don't have a ton of trees on top of our house though. Only 1 actually. The rest are around the perimieter of our property. Good thing too because we had that crazy snowstorm last october and the damage in our area was significant. We lost a lot of trees and limbs, but nothing actually fell on our house!
That's my dream, but having had friends in Northern CA that lived in Santa Cruz mountains live in that kind of area I don't know. They had some down trees on power lines and then it was a battle over whom was responsible and some of their electrical appliances were damaged. My friend lives in Eastern Ontario, CA on heavily wooded property and loves it but sometimes complains there isn't enough sun.
My house is going on the market soon. I live on about 1.5 acres, and most of it is wooded. I live up a fairly steep and twisty driveway on top of a hill. At present we are prepping the house for sale and one of the decisions I need to make is how much to trim some of the low branches on trees and big shrub/tree things (no idea what they are) that are halfway between the house and the road. Obviously the low branches close to the house have been trimmed. For me, one of the best things about this house is that I am in a subdivision but you really can't see the house from the road for a large part of the year unless you know it's there (it's also a deep lot). But it seems like maybe we should thin out the landscaping at least a little? I am pretty sure that most of the website photos will not be taken from the curb. There would be no point. You'd say, wow, that looks like a nice lot to build on, heh.
I think for the most part, people either like this sort of wooded look, or they do not. I know in my case, there would simply be no way to appeal to people who don't like a wooded/heavily treed lot so it seems dumb to even try.
For me, one of the things I do when we look at houses is to turn into a subdivision and look down the main road. If there are no trees, I just tell my husband to turn around. It's just not my thing. But obviously it does appeal to a lot of people, right?
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.
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.
