They say that Fairfax County use to be all farms, then why are there so many old large trees? (Arlington: 2014, high school)

[tysonsengineer]

This is a very easy answer. OP is thinking farms as in midwest; ie grown agriculture and crops. Farms in this area in the 20th century were largely poultry or beef. Tysons used to have a big beef processing plant. The trees are there because you don't generally have to clear cut for a poultry or beef farm (assuming you aren't in the Brazilian rain forest). The area had lots of natural pastures, and where it didn't those trees were removed long ago in the plantation era (when it was crops like wheat and tobacco) so any regrowth would look like old forest.

^ This is not to say there weren't some crop farmers, but it's not like they were of the scale of the massive industrial sized farms of the plains states. The topography of this area being as hilly as it is (and the fact that it was one of the first area colonized) assured that lots were subdivided in much smaller sizes than out in the plain states via manifest destiny where if you claim it, and put a house on it, it's yours.

[car54]

I'd say there probably were a lot of crops grown....but the crops were hay, field corn, and other feed for the animals. Probably also a lot of gardens for the farm's human inhabitants.

[z28lt1]

I know it is not totally apples to apples, but Loudoun has aerial maps/phots over time. I think very eastern Loudoun would somewhat look like Fairfax, (but not exactly). If you check out the 1957 aerials of Eastern Loudoun, you'll see there was a good mix of cleared areas and forest areas. Also, as TysonEngineer noted, if you compare the 1957 aerial with the 2002 aerial in an area that was not developed by 2002, you'll see some amount of regrowth in the pastures.

You can see the Loudoun Aerials at Aerial Archive Zoom in and scroll to the east.

[Laid Off]

The maps below were very interesting and showed that there is actually more forested areas in Western Loundon County today than years ago.

I read somewhere that the peak for greenery and forest cover in Fairfax County was the 1950s. During the Great Depression in the 1930s many areas that were farms with crops were lost to the banks and later on became forested again in the 1940s and 50s. Then in the 1960s the bulldozers took over and thousands of acres of forest were lost to subdivisions.

Originally Posted by z28lt1

I know it is not totally apples to apples, but Loudoun has aerial maps/phots over time. I think very eastern Loudoun would somewhat look like Fairfax, (but not exactly). If you check out the 1957 aerials of Eastern Loudoun, you'll see there was a good mix of cleared areas and forest areas. Also, as TysonEngineer noted, if you compare the 1957 aerial with the 2002 aerial in an area that was not developed by 2002, you'll see some amount of regrowth in the pastures.

You can see the Loudoun Aerials at Aerial Archive Zoom in and scroll to the east.

[newgatedenizen]

Originally Posted by Laid Off

Regardless I am still trying to picture how my neighborhood in Fairfax must have looked like before the subdivisions.

Not Fairfax City - but this is a photo of Sunset Hills Farm near the modern Sunset Hills Road in Reston c. 1959.

[JT-3]

I can remember all the large trees they cut down for the FFX County Pkwy...enormous oaks! There was an old growth forest that was between Fox Mill and West Ox.

[Laid Off]

Originally Posted by JT-3

I can remember all the large trees they cut down for the FFX County Pkwy...enormous oaks! There was an old growth forest that was between Fox Mill and West Ox.

If Fairfax was such a great area for farming why did they allow that area to sit as forest for so long? Why wasn't it corn fields or dairy farms like the forest land in Wisconsin became?

[Carlingtonian]

Originally Posted by tysonsengineer

It wasn't that great of a place for crop farming (red clay). It was alright for tobacco, and serviceable for other. The plains states have far better soils and an easier time irrigating without as much topographic elevation variation.

Are you sure about the soil? Our backyard is red clay--under about 1-2 feet of topsoil accumulated over the decades. However, it sounds reasonable that the hilliness of this area did play a part.

Originally Posted by Laid Off

If Fairfax was such a great area for farming why did they allow that area to sit as forest for so long? Why wasn't it corn fields or dairy farms like the forest land in Wisconsin became?

Again, I think the farmers purposely left some woods on their land as wind buffer and habitat for wildlife and game. Plenty of crop fields and dairy farms amid the forests. Could be that the Midwestern farmers would've done the same but didn't have a lot of woods to begin with. Or maybe higher expenses out there meant they had to get max productivity out of every square foot of land.

I just posted a link to this thread in the Rural and Small-Town Living forum, in hopes that an actual farmer will weigh in.

[lchoro]

Originally Posted by Laid Off

What was Fairfax County MOSTLY in the 1940s and 50s before the developers came in and built so many subdivisions and strip centers? Old timers tell me it was mostly farms. But then why are places like Reston mostly forest in between the houses and strip centers. Fly over a place like Reston or Burke and it is a sea of trees. Were all these trees planted since the 1950s? Or was Fairfax mostly forested and not the farms that the old timers tell me about?

They ripped out the trees for the man-made lakes. 40 years have passed since the old developments in Reston and allowed for planted trees to mature. They made a conscious choice in North Reston (20194) to preserve the tree density. Of course, you still have man-made Lake Newport.

[tysonsengineer]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

Are you sure about the soil? Our backyard is red clay--under about 1-2 feet of topsoil accumulated over the decades. However, it sounds reasonable that the hilliness of this area did play a part.



Again, I think the farmers purposely left some woods on their land as wind buffer and habitat for wildlife and game. Plenty of crop fields and dairy farms amid the forests. Could be that the Midwestern farmers would've done the same but didn't have a lot of woods to begin with. Or maybe higher expenses out there meant they had to get max productivity out of every square foot of land.

I just posted a link to this thread in the Rural and Small-Town Living forum, in hopes that an actual farmer will weigh in.

Depends where you are, but the red clay is a problem. If you have 1-2 feet of top soil that's pretty significant (especially in Arlington), that might just be because of 50+ years of natural cycle without any significant plant growth on surface. Rule of thumb for me when I used to be in the land development soul sucking cycle was the top 6-12" would be your high organics/top soils followed by utter and complete crap beneath it (marine clay/fatty clay)