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.
My house is an old farm house that is the oldest thing around here built in 1932. Huge mature trees are part of the reason I love it. The willow tree must have been planted when the house was built. It is huge and right next to the house. When we moved in the very next day the next door neighbor came over and asked us to cut it down because she worried it will fall on here house. She is one of 3 neighbors that asked us to cut trees down. The answer was no each time. Why did they choose to buy or build houses that are sitting under the shade of my trees if they don't like it?
My house is going on the market soon. I live on about 1.5 acres, and most of it is wooded. ...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. ....
?
We live on 12 acres and one of the things that sold us on our home was an aerial shot (now easy to get through google maps satellite view) - with a heavily wooded lot it is a great way to see how private the home is. Include another shot a little further away that also shows how close it is to amenities .
I would strongly suggest thinning at least 30 feet from the house if possible (and if you haven't already). We did lose some of our shade, but for wind, fire and light it made a tremendous difference. We also thinned out some dead or dying trees.
Thanks! It's definitely all thinned out at least 30 feet away. It's just a long way to the street. Couple hundred feet, I guess? I want to have her put in the listing description that it is so private we haven't gotten a single trick-or-treater in the 6+ years we've been here, and this is a family-oriented subdivision. (Kidding...mostly...)
Maybe I'm odd, but I neither like fully wooded nor totally cleared. My preference is widely spaced trees that spread out, not the skinny, tall kind that grow naturally in woods. That way there is more room to play underneath, its not quite so dark and suffocating, but you still get the greenery and shade.
One challenge my hubby and I had was each house we looked at that had any sort of land was either all wooded, or ZERO trees (or, just a few tiny, young ones that hadn't grown much) but not much in between.
I'd rather clear a lot and plant new trees though, than try to "save" a few trees on a wooded lot, since then you have skinny tall trees that don't look quite right not being in the woods anymore, and half the time, they die anyway from all the disturbance of building the house and removing the other trees.
I'd be leary of a new neighborhood cut into a pine forest. Tall pines tend to have tighter root balls and in heavy rains, combined with new wind patterns formed by clearing the forest and building houses, have the recipe for falling?
Buddy built in such a new neighborhood. FIrst winter, quite a few full grown pines came down right on the edges of where the forest was cleared. Fortunately, it was far away from the house to avoid damage.
I'm fearing the first hurricane in the area following some heavy rains
[quote=CrueRulz;30379057]Maybe I'm odd, but I neither like fully wooded nor totally cleared. [quote]
I too am in the "neither" group, because I prefer an urban environment that has a large number of older trees along the sidewalks. I grew up in a residential neighborhood in Pittsburgh, and our house had a big old maple tree in the back yard that was a beautiful thing.
A heavily wooded environment to me is just creepy, and those clear-cut developments prevalent in newer suburbs are harsh and ugly.
I've lived in both. There is a sense of pride when you plant trees in a new subdivision and watch them grow. (We planted a mix of slow-growers and fast-growers.)
I had to cut down half the trees on the more wooded lot I lived on - dead trees, trees too close to the house which could cause foundation issues, trees that were leaning towards the neighbor's house because the soil had shifted/tree was topheavy. We trimmed a lot of branches on the remaining trees to get enough light to have grass grow in the front yard. I loved the remaining trees, though, loved the squirrels and the birds and the shade. Hated the possums and raccoons which also lived in them.
I like a nice clear yard where I can plant my own but having them there already is fine too.. lots of people plant them too close together, or don't do simple things like properly ungirdle the roots and plant them too deep, and keep them from developing 2 trunks as they grow, plant them too close to the house, planting the wrong species too close to sidewalks or driveways and the roots push up on the concrete, etc. I like a nice, medium aged tree, properly spaced apart, different varieties, properly pruned so there's one main trunk.
I planted something like 12 trees in this large lot I briefly owned and they are all still there growing strongly.. all different varieties from honeycrisp apples, to accolade elms, northern red oaks, maple hybrids, a couple of blue spruce, and a few I forgot the names of.... all properly spaced, ample distance from the house, with roots that were properly sliced when they came girdled in containers , and planted shallow, so they should continue to thrive.
But in the newer neighborhoods the developers came in an clearcut the entire forest and plant a few small trees and name the subdivision after the forest that use to be there.
My preference is to buy the forest and keep the houses out of it altogether!
Heck, we have enough vacant land in already-urbanized areas, at least in my area. We shouldn't be promoting more urban sprawl which serves to diminish the quality of both the city environment and countryside in one fell swoop.
My preference is to buy the forest and keep the houses out of it altogether!
Heck, we have enough vacant land in already-urbanized areas, at least in my area. We shouldn't be promoting more urban sprawl which serves to diminish the quality of both the city environment and countryside in one fell swoop.
On one hand, I agree...but a lot of people (myself, really) dislike urban living, yet have to live close enough to the city to have a job. So therein lies the rub.
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.
.
