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.
A relative of mine did not buy a new house because he said there were to many large mature trees in the yard. He said he preferred the developments where all the trees were removed so he could chose what to do with the open areas. He wanted to keep most of the lot in grass and plant a few small trees of his choice. He did not like a home where much of his lot would be in shade due to large trees or have to worry about raking leaves every fall.
How about you, do you prefer a lot with alot of trees or mostly grass? Should the housing developers cut down most of the trees or try to save as many as possible?
IMHO your relative is being rather short-sighted.
The reasons to save trees are many, and not just for esthetics.
Mature trees are windbreaks; in addition, they filter water, help prevent erosion, help lower air pollution by processing carbon dioxide, and conserve energy by providing shade. Trees provide a place for wildlife to live.
Of course some trees must be cut down; it is my understanding that thinning a forest can help with fire prevention. Some trees are sick, some trees interfere with sewers or telephone wires. Those trees must be pruned or even cut down.
I guess it's just me, but I can't imagine cutting a bunch of mature trees down simply because I want to "start over."
I guess it's just me, but I can't imagine cutting a bunch of mature trees down simply because I want to "start over."
No, it's not just you! But from an outside perspective, it seems to be typical for the U.S. - sorry to say that. Trees are cut, beautiful older homes (everything built before 1990 seems to be "old") are torn down, everybody starts over. There is no chance for anything charming to grow and develop.
Some two years ago they started to cut down square miles of forest in the Nocatee development. When you look at their website, it's all about nature.
For me, bare new neighborhoods are ugly and uninviting. But some people obviously like it that way, as many homes only have lawn, no further vegetation, even after 10 years.
Trees are important for many reasons, as cil pointed out. Plus they add a vertical element to a home. That's significant in terms of aesthetics.
I agree with the previous posters, who made great points. I too shudder when seeing a vast, open expanse of new houses where all the trees have been torn down.
Cut down the absolute minimum number of trees required to build. Leave the rest and consider removing more only after you've lived in the house for a couple of years.
I reread the OP and I think the person talked about (the relative) has the right outlook. He doesn't want to buy the lot because it has mature trees. He's not planning on cutting them down. If a lot is already bare of trees then what he wants to do makes sense.
I would only consider a home with mature trees on the property, but this works out fine b/c I don't like newer homes (I like pre-1950s) so they go together. Others like the flattened look. To each his own. As long as he isn't cutting down mature trees, it doesn't matter to me!
As for what developers should do...yes, I'd like them to leave mature trees. We need more trees to improve air quality, stabilize soil, provide protection from sun, fertilize soil with their dropped leaves, etc. Also if grass is in place of them, there is water being used which lowers the water table. Many reasons to keep the trees.
I wouldn't buy a house that did not have large mature trees in the yard. I think that housing developments where lots of houses are just dropped into a big open clear-cut field are absolutely hideous! Trees add beauty, character, and shade. They draw birds and wildlife. They bring life to a piece of land. And it takes a long time for a tree to mature (longer than most people will live in their new houses). There is nothing duller than a suburban lawn. It demands everything (water, resources, fertilizer, labor), and it gives you nothing back. I think this person might be happier living in a townhouse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodtype
A relative of mine did not buy a new house because he said there were to many large mature trees in the yard. He said he preferred the developments where all the trees were removed so he could chose what to do with the open areas. He wanted to keep most of the lot in grass and plant a few small trees of his choice. He did not like a home where much of his lot would be in shade due to large trees or have to worry about raking leaves every fall.
How about you, do you prefer a lot with alot of trees or mostly grass? Should the housing developers cut down most of the trees or try to save as many as possible?
I hate all these new developments where all you see are rooftops and NO trees. It just looks so barren and dry. I'm all for having a nice, new house, but I love mature trees not only for environmental reasons but because they add character and a "homey" feel.
I would definitely prefer a builder left as many mature trees as possible. I love trees, and it takes so long to grow them.
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.
