Part of the problem with HOAs isn't just that they require your lawn to be green, but that they mandate what *type* of Green. This is beginning to change, but until recently, most HOAs in neighborhoods built in the last 20 years in Northern Colorado mandated Kentucky Blue, a notoriously thirsty breed. Looks great, but not great for a plateau desert, which is what Colorado is, in the narrow strip between the plains and the mountains.
And to every hawking trees, beware: Trees are the natural enemy of Concrete. This includes foundations and sidewalks. Your sidewalks will get pushed up, your foundations will get infiltrated. It will happen. So you have to find something to fill in the space close to those areas unless you want to be paying for foundation repair.
Finally, regarding the pretty picture earlier with all of those desert flowers: That shit is expensive. Not sure how many of you visit greenhouses, but I guarantee that that landscaping, sans grass, was at least twice the cost of sod. Buying all of those individual bulbs, etc. Hope they planted them themselves, or that would be another insane cost. I'd be interested to see what the over/under is on return, how many years of watering sod it would take to equal out to purchasing those bulbs, but I'd hazard a guess that it is over 15 years. That just isn't economical for many families. Part of making ecological progress is making it economically feasible. That's one of the sole reasons residential solar hasn't taken off in vast quantities despite having the tech for over 30 years now. The return on it is far longer than the average length of home ownership.
Or just get an appropriate tree. Nobody ever lost their foundation to a Dwarf Cherry or Hawthorne.
Part of the problem with HOAs isn't just that they require your lawn to be green, but that they mandate what *type* of Green. This is beginning to change, but until recently, most HOAs in neighborhoods built in the last 20 years in Northern Colorado mandated Kentucky Blue, a notoriously thirsty breed. Looks great, but not great for a plateau desert, which is what Colorado is, in the narrow strip between the plains and the mountains.
And to every hawking trees, beware: Trees are the natural enemy of Concrete. This includes foundations and sidewalks. Your sidewalks will get pushed up, your foundations will get infiltrated. It will happen. So you have to find something to fill in the space close to those areas unless you want to be paying for foundation repair.
Finally, regarding the pretty picture earlier with all of those desert flowers: That shit is expensive. Not sure how many of you visit greenhouses, but I guarantee that that landscaping, sans grass, was at least twice the cost of sod. Buying all of those individual bulbs, etc. Hope they planted them themselves, or that would be another insane cost. I'd be interested to see what the over/under is on return, how many years of watering sod it would take to equal out to purchasing those bulbs, but I'd hazard a guess that it is over 15 years. That just isn't economical for many families. Part of making ecological progress is making it economically feasible. That's one of the sole reasons residential solar hasn't taken off in vast quantities despite having the tech for over 30 years now. The return on it is far longer than the average length of home ownership.
Or just get an appropriate tree. Nobody ever lost their foundation to a Dwarf Cherry or Hawthorne.
Seriously. You'd think no one had trees around houses before from that post.
+2
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Part of the problem with HOAs isn't just that they require your lawn to be green, but that they mandate what *type* of Green. This is beginning to change, but until recently, most HOAs in neighborhoods built in the last 20 years in Northern Colorado mandated Kentucky Blue, a notoriously thirsty breed. Looks great, but not great for a plateau desert, which is what Colorado is, in the narrow strip between the plains and the mountains.
And to every hawking trees, beware: Trees are the natural enemy of Concrete. This includes foundations and sidewalks. Your sidewalks will get pushed up, your foundations will get infiltrated. It will happen. So you have to find something to fill in the space close to those areas unless you want to be paying for foundation repair.
Finally, regarding the pretty picture earlier with all of those desert flowers: That shit is expensive. Not sure how many of you visit greenhouses, but I guarantee that that landscaping, sans grass, was at least twice the cost of sod. Buying all of those individual bulbs, etc. Hope they planted them themselves, or that would be another insane cost. I'd be interested to see what the over/under is on return, how many years of watering sod it would take to equal out to purchasing those bulbs, but I'd hazard a guess that it is over 15 years. That just isn't economical for many families. Part of making ecological progress is making it economically feasible. That's one of the sole reasons residential solar hasn't taken off in vast quantities despite having the tech for over 30 years now. The return on it is far longer than the average length of home ownership.
Home solar also doesn't get adopted because of appearance. There are companies that install it free around here. I would never want it.
Part of the problem with HOAs isn't just that they require your lawn to be green, but that they mandate what *type* of Green. This is beginning to change, but until recently, most HOAs in neighborhoods built in the last 20 years in Northern Colorado mandated Kentucky Blue, a notoriously thirsty breed. Looks great, but not great for a plateau desert, which is what Colorado is, in the narrow strip between the plains and the mountains.
And to every hawking trees, beware: Trees are the natural enemy of Concrete. This includes foundations and sidewalks. Your sidewalks will get pushed up, your foundations will get infiltrated. It will happen. So you have to find something to fill in the space close to those areas unless you want to be paying for foundation repair.
Finally, regarding the pretty picture earlier with all of those desert flowers: That shit is expensive. Not sure how many of you visit greenhouses, but I guarantee that that landscaping, sans grass, was at least twice the cost of sod. Buying all of those individual bulbs, etc. Hope they planted them themselves, or that would be another insane cost. I'd be interested to see what the over/under is on return, how many years of watering sod it would take to equal out to purchasing those bulbs, but I'd hazard a guess that it is over 15 years. That just isn't economical for many families. Part of making ecological progress is making it economically feasible. That's one of the sole reasons residential solar hasn't taken off in vast quantities despite having the tech for over 30 years now. The return on it is far longer than the average length of home ownership.
Or just get an appropriate tree. Nobody ever lost their foundation to a Dwarf Cherry or Hawthorne.
It's funny that you mention Dwarf Cherry, actually. While I don't know its effects on concrete, it is brutal to masonry. The amount of dirt that the root structure shifts around will make any brick wall bulge, crack, or distend. Masonry overall is far more susceptible to plants though, hell, even strong vines can screw up the best-masoned walls.
Mileage always varies, but my point was that there were multiple people in this thread citing trees as a panacea. Also, trees are incredibly water hungry - you may not be watering them, but they're taking water from your other plants (which is not balanced out by the shade they provide), and drying out the soil in the immediate area, leading to ground-shifting. (Note: Applicable to Western Deserts only. Not familiar with Eastern US)
Also, Hawthorne has very shallow root structures that like to spread out. Even if they're not abrasive to foundations, they fit the profile for ruining sidewalks. My landscaping guides recommend 20 feet from concrete for Hawthorn. They cite Cypress and Birch as the safest, at 12 feet, but still recommend that difference.
Overall, I see people underestimate the effect of trees far more than they overestimate them.
Priest on
+1
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
There are lots of generally safer root system trees but they typically aren't the best for landscape design as far as appearances go. One of the battles state planners have right now is the debate between pretty roadways and cheap roadways, as most county commissioners don't like the smaller root system trees for swales and walkway shading, while planner point out that the cost to repave and prune the trees are usually beyond what they are willing to pay.
There are lots of generally safer root system trees but they typically aren't the best for landscape design as far as appearances go. One of the battles state planners have right now is the debate between pretty roadways and cheap roadways, as most county commissioners don't like the smaller root system trees for swales and walkway shading, while planner point out that the cost to repave and prune the trees are usually beyond what they are willing to pay.
You, my friend, sound like a city planner. You're in good company
Part of the problem with HOAs isn't just that they require your lawn to be green, but that they mandate what *type* of Green. This is beginning to change, but until recently, most HOAs in neighborhoods built in the last 20 years in Northern Colorado mandated Kentucky Blue, a notoriously thirsty breed. Looks great, but not great for a plateau desert, which is what Colorado is, in the narrow strip between the plains and the mountains.
And to every hawking trees, beware: Trees are the natural enemy of Concrete. This includes foundations and sidewalks. Your sidewalks will get pushed up, your foundations will get infiltrated. It will happen. So you have to find something to fill in the space close to those areas unless you want to be paying for foundation repair.
Finally, regarding the pretty picture earlier with all of those desert flowers: That shit is expensive. Not sure how many of you visit greenhouses, but I guarantee that that landscaping, sans grass, was at least twice the cost of sod. Buying all of those individual bulbs, etc. Hope they planted them themselves, or that would be another insane cost. I'd be interested to see what the over/under is on return, how many years of watering sod it would take to equal out to purchasing those bulbs, but I'd hazard a guess that it is over 15 years. That just isn't economical for many families. Part of making ecological progress is making it economically feasible. That's one of the sole reasons residential solar hasn't taken off in vast quantities despite having the tech for over 30 years now. The return on it is far longer than the average length of home ownership.
Or just get an appropriate tree. Nobody ever lost their foundation to a Dwarf Cherry or Hawthorne.
It's funny that you mention Dwarf Cherry, actually. While I don't know its effects on concrete, it is brutal to masonry. The amount of dirt that the root structure shifts around will make any brick wall bulge, crack, or distend. Masonry overall is far more susceptible to plants though, hell, even strong vines can screw up the best-masoned walls.
Mileage always varies, but my point was that there were multiple people in this thread citing trees as a panacea. Also, trees are incredibly water hungry - you may not be watering them, but they're taking water from your other plants (which is not balanced out by the shade they provide), and drying out the soil in the immediate area, leading to ground-shifting. (Note: Applicable to Western Deserts only. Not familiar with Eastern US)
Also, Hawthorne has very shallow root structures that like to spread out. Even if they're not abrasive to foundations, they fit the profile for ruining sidewalks. My landscaping guides recommend 20 feet from concrete for Hawthorn. They cite Cypress and Birch as the safest, at 12 feet, but still recommend that difference.
Overall, I see people underestimate the effect of trees far more than they overestimate them.
So what you are saying is that we should plant bushes, with some trees far away from the house, all of which should ideally be native or edible.
edit - edible since if you water them yourself, and actually eat the produce, and would otherwise BUY those veggies then you can do really well in terms of water use growing your own food. Since you have the time to go and water each plant individually to its needs.
Part of the problem with HOAs isn't just that they require your lawn to be green, but that they mandate what *type* of Green. This is beginning to change, but until recently, most HOAs in neighborhoods built in the last 20 years in Northern Colorado mandated Kentucky Blue, a notoriously thirsty breed. Looks great, but not great for a plateau desert, which is what Colorado is, in the narrow strip between the plains and the mountains.
And to every hawking trees, beware: Trees are the natural enemy of Concrete. This includes foundations and sidewalks. Your sidewalks will get pushed up, your foundations will get infiltrated. It will happen. So you have to find something to fill in the space close to those areas unless you want to be paying for foundation repair.
Finally, regarding the pretty picture earlier with all of those desert flowers: That shit is expensive. Not sure how many of you visit greenhouses, but I guarantee that that landscaping, sans grass, was at least twice the cost of sod. Buying all of those individual bulbs, etc. Hope they planted them themselves, or that would be another insane cost. I'd be interested to see what the over/under is on return, how many years of watering sod it would take to equal out to purchasing those bulbs, but I'd hazard a guess that it is over 15 years. That just isn't economical for many families. Part of making ecological progress is making it economically feasible. That's one of the sole reasons residential solar hasn't taken off in vast quantities despite having the tech for over 30 years now. The return on it is far longer than the average length of home ownership.
Or just get an appropriate tree. Nobody ever lost their foundation to a Dwarf Cherry or Hawthorne.
It's funny that you mention Dwarf Cherry, actually. While I don't know its effects on concrete, it is brutal to masonry. The amount of dirt that the root structure shifts around will make any brick wall bulge, crack, or distend. Masonry overall is far more susceptible to plants though, hell, even strong vines can screw up the best-masoned walls.
Mileage always varies, but my point was that there were multiple people in this thread citing trees as a panacea. Also, trees are incredibly water hungry - you may not be watering them, but they're taking water from your other plants (which is not balanced out by the shade they provide), and drying out the soil in the immediate area, leading to ground-shifting. (Note: Applicable to Western Deserts only. Not familiar with Eastern US)
Also, Hawthorne has very shallow root structures that like to spread out. Even if they're not abrasive to foundations, they fit the profile for ruining sidewalks. My landscaping guides recommend 20 feet from concrete for Hawthorn. They cite Cypress and Birch as the safest, at 12 feet, but still recommend that difference.
Overall, I see people underestimate the effect of trees far more than they overestimate them.
So what you are saying is that we should plant bushes, with some trees far away from the house, all of which should ideally be native or edible.
edit - edible since if you water them yourself, and actually eat the produce, and would otherwise BUY those veggies then you can do really well in terms of water use growing your own food. Since you have the time to go and water each plant individually to its needs.
From an ecological point of view, non edible trees & shrubs can also have high value if they support a whole bunch of different species. Hawthorn is a great hedge plant for this reason, as well as being an excellent, almost platonic ideal of a hedge plant as such (fast growing, resilient, festooned with 2" thorns)
Trees can also get into a house's external pipes and cause clogs and backups. If you have a septic system it is important to prevent trees from messing with the drainage field.
You can support wildlife even with small grassland like areas. I get a light show from spring to early fall when the edge of the forest near my house lights up with fireflies. That's just a few feet wide transition strip between the forest and the lawn I maintain.
3DS Friends: 1693-1781-7023
+1
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
In defense of trees again, urban trees when planted properly so they grow and are maintained not only absorb CO2 and create cooling shade but also absorb particulate matter and gases like nitrous oxide (a more potent greenhouse gas) and act as sponges for rain - notice how trees will continue dripping for a while after a rain storm passes? That is water being slowly released, instead of all running off the sidewalks and roads at once. There have also been studies showing that having trees around reduces stress (just psychologically because people like trees unconsciously, and also from reducing noise just from blocking sounds) and makes people get outside and exercise more, creating general health benefits.
Trees are still very good, just as with everything else you have to research and do it right. Don't be like those people who wanted to "help the monarchs" but then planted the wrong species of milkweed.
Yo landscape architecture student here, I know this is late but the problem is that councils do not invest in the correct tree pits for their urban/street trees. If you spend money on the correct tree pit the roots will not break out, cause trouble or be deprived of nutrients etc and the tree will grow fine. Buy a cheap tree but invest in a good tree pit because that will save you money in the long run, something which councils do not often think about.
edit: also London Planes are the best for high pollution areas, they can withstand it really well, hence why they are good in areas like London.
Liiya on
+2
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
Ginkgos are another excellent urban street tree. They tolerate high pollution, salt, extremes of heat and cold, can live centuries, can grow very large and stately and are generally handsome, have cool fan-shaped leaves that turn a lovely golden in autumn, and are pest and disease free (since they had gone nearly extinct so anything that bothered them went extinct too). But again with doing the research - you need to make sure you only get male plants. The females and males are different plants and the females produce gooey nasty fruits that smell like vomit and are messy and absolutely disgusting.
I always forget about them, they're not a native here so we don't use them often and we can be terribly fussy about non-native species, but they do have the most gorgeous leaves. Didn't know that about the female ones though so I'm glad you told me!
Ginkgos are another excellent urban street tree. They tolerate high pollution, salt, extremes of heat and cold, can live centuries, can grow very large and stately and are generally handsome, have cool fan-shaped leaves that turn a lovely golden in autumn, and are pest and disease free (since they had gone nearly extinct so anything that bothered them went extinct too). But again with doing the research - you need to make sure you only get male plants. The females and males are different plants and the females produce gooey nasty fruits that smell like vomit and are messy and absolutely disgusting.
I was in Nashville recently, and the city has lined the sidewalks with ginkos. Very pretty.
Ginkgo is an extreme example since the fruit's so nasty, but I've often seen it recommended that you get male trees to avoid messy seeds, fruit, etc. The downside for those with seasonal allergies is that in many species the male trees are the ones filling the air with pollen. Just something else to keep in mind and research when choosing trees and shrubs for your yard (and which I wish our municipalities thought about when they did landscaping.)
0
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
Apparently I didn't post this before. I'd mentioned that I had taken out a big chunk of lawn where I live and am planting native wildflowers there, and might be reimbursed by the city for part of the cost for reducing water runoff.
There's a famous chart that compares root systems of different prairie flowers and grasses versus turf grass. Spoiled for huge:
Measurements are in feet (three feet=a yard which is a little under a meter). Kentucky Bluegrass on the far left is used as a standard turf grass.
Or as you can see in these dried versions:
The deep root systems both protect the plants from drought (reach deeper water) and fire (yeah, try to burn all that root) but also allow greater infiltration of water since the water can flow down the roots (allowing that water to be tapped later) and when roots die they leave deep aerated paths through soil that allow water to flow down.
Buffalo grass on the far right is the one some of us were recommending as a turf alternative since it doesn't grow tall but has a deep, hearty root system.
Ginkgo is an extreme example since the fruit's so nasty, but I've often seen it recommended that you get male trees to avoid messy seeds, fruit, etc. The downside for those with seasonal allergies is that in many species the male trees are the ones filling the air with pollen. Just something else to keep in mind and research when choosing trees and shrubs for your yard (and which I wish our municipalities thought about when they did landscaping.)
You can get female trees too as long as there's not a single male tree anywhere in the county
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Posts
Or just get an appropriate tree. Nobody ever lost their foundation to a Dwarf Cherry or Hawthorne.
Seriously. You'd think no one had trees around houses before from that post.
Home solar also doesn't get adopted because of appearance. There are companies that install it free around here. I would never want it.
It's funny that you mention Dwarf Cherry, actually. While I don't know its effects on concrete, it is brutal to masonry. The amount of dirt that the root structure shifts around will make any brick wall bulge, crack, or distend. Masonry overall is far more susceptible to plants though, hell, even strong vines can screw up the best-masoned walls.
Mileage always varies, but my point was that there were multiple people in this thread citing trees as a panacea. Also, trees are incredibly water hungry - you may not be watering them, but they're taking water from your other plants (which is not balanced out by the shade they provide), and drying out the soil in the immediate area, leading to ground-shifting. (Note: Applicable to Western Deserts only. Not familiar with Eastern US)
Also, Hawthorne has very shallow root structures that like to spread out. Even if they're not abrasive to foundations, they fit the profile for ruining sidewalks. My landscaping guides recommend 20 feet from concrete for Hawthorn. They cite Cypress and Birch as the safest, at 12 feet, but still recommend that difference.
Overall, I see people underestimate the effect of trees far more than they overestimate them.
You, my friend, sound like a city planner. You're in good company
So what you are saying is that we should plant bushes, with some trees far away from the house, all of which should ideally be native or edible.
edit - edible since if you water them yourself, and actually eat the produce, and would otherwise BUY those veggies then you can do really well in terms of water use growing your own food. Since you have the time to go and water each plant individually to its needs.
From an ecological point of view, non edible trees & shrubs can also have high value if they support a whole bunch of different species. Hawthorn is a great hedge plant for this reason, as well as being an excellent, almost platonic ideal of a hedge plant as such (fast growing, resilient, festooned with 2" thorns)
You can support wildlife even with small grassland like areas. I get a light show from spring to early fall when the edge of the forest near my house lights up with fireflies. That's just a few feet wide transition strip between the forest and the lawn I maintain.
Trees are still very good, just as with everything else you have to research and do it right. Don't be like those people who wanted to "help the monarchs" but then planted the wrong species of milkweed.
edit: also London Planes are the best for high pollution areas, they can withstand it really well, hence why they are good in areas like London.
I was in Nashville recently, and the city has lined the sidewalks with ginkos. Very pretty.
There's a famous chart that compares root systems of different prairie flowers and grasses versus turf grass. Spoiled for huge:
Measurements are in feet (three feet=a yard which is a little under a meter). Kentucky Bluegrass on the far left is used as a standard turf grass.
Or as you can see in these dried versions:
The deep root systems both protect the plants from drought (reach deeper water) and fire (yeah, try to burn all that root) but also allow greater infiltration of water since the water can flow down the roots (allowing that water to be tapped later) and when roots die they leave deep aerated paths through soil that allow water to flow down.
Buffalo grass on the far right is the one some of us were recommending as a turf alternative since it doesn't grow tall but has a deep, hearty root system.
You can get female trees too as long as there's not a single male tree anywhere in the county
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.