Screening Tree Needed
Forum Archives
EmilyK
Location: Washington, Kitsap Peninsula
Posted: Apr-03-2005 at 10:58pm
Hi Guys,
I'm posting this question on behalf of a friend who needs a screening tree--approximately 25-30 feet tall to do the job--that can survive in part shade (just North of a line of cedars and firs). It can have a spread of up to 20-25 feet (eventually). A fast grower would be good. And I was thinking that it shouldn't grow too tall because then it would begin to add additional shade to the property and it will stand due East of the garden.
You might think that it's weird (feel free to say so) but I was thinking of suggesting a Laurel. 'Cause you know that they can be pruned into a really nice, open shape--that kind of look would be great for the property. And they grow pretty fast. Maybe a laurel wouldn't grow big enough, though. I do know one that's got to be about 35 feet tall and the trunk and branches are smooth and sinuous. But most of the literature says that laurels only grow to be about 15-20 feet tall. What do you all think?
EmilyK -- Port Orchard, WA
EmilyK
Location: Washington, Kitsap Peninsula
Posted: Apr-04-2005 at 9:44am
I do have to say that I was considering other trees as well...maybe amur maple or some other maple. Again, this tree doesn't seem to be as tall as what's needed.
EmilyK -- Port Orchard, WA
Jamie68
Location: Washington, Southwestern
Posted: Apr-04-2005 at 10:18am
Hi Emily,
I am also looking for a similiar tree for my landscape plan, I can't wait to see the ideas people may have. So far the suggestions given to me are Leyland Cypress (to large & to common), and a specific cherry - also not right. So i look forward to any responses you get...I will also post if any good ideas come my way...
Have a Good Day!
Jamie
Lisa A
Location: Oregon, Greater Portland Metro
Posted: Apr-04-2005 at 10:32am
when you say laurel, do you mean english laurel? i'm assuming so based on your above size guesstimates.
i would recommend against laurel [you did say we could ] for many reasons: nothing else can grow under or around them; they create very dense shade; they would require frequent trimming to maintain an open look; they aren't classified as a noxious weed but many conservation groups consider english laurels an obnoxious weed; and other than offering screening, they don't have much else going for them, imo. lastly, there is the possibility, as with any other fast-growing tree, of weak, brittle growth.
i think there are other wonderful options. is your friend wanting evergreen choices only? some deciduous trees can be dense enough to offer screening when bare, too.
how about a cryptomeria? there are some lovely forms, all of which can be pruned up as they grow taller, revealing interesting trunks, many with flaky, cinnamon-colored bark. i have 'sekkan sugi,' which would do well in part shade. it grows approx 2' a year. i saw an older specimen at the elisabeth b. miller garden that was a stunner. perhaps not quite as wide or tall as you stated but she could plant more than 1 or mix it with something else, such as c. japonica 'elegans.' the mix of 'sekkan sugi' with its yellow-tinged foliage with the winter colors of rusty purple of 'elegans' would be lovely.
there is also the wheel tree, trochodendron araloides. i've seen this grown in fairly heavy shade in the jane platt garden so i know it will do fine in part shade. conditions. it will eventually attain a good size, although it may not grow as quickly as your friend wants.
cryptomeria japonica 'sekkan-sugi'
c. japonica 'elegans'
trochodendron araloides
i'll post more suggestions later. gotta run for now.
Lisa A
Location: Oregon, Greater Portland Metro
Posted: Apr-04-2005 at 10:34am
leylands are prone to tipping over, especially in windy areas. hopefully, mdvaden will pop in with his take on this over-planted tree.
DebbieTT
Location: Washington, Kitsap Peninsula
Posted: Apr-04-2005 at 11:15am
Well cedars are fast growing and can be pruned to stay a certain height, although it would take some doing to get up to 25 feet in height. Is there a reason it has to be that tall? Screening out an apartment building? Hemlock hedges are wonderful too.
I would not recommend laurel either, but photinia grows fast and quite tall too. Even though it is common it is a beautiful shrub when allowed to grow into a tree and screens quite well.
I will go take a picture of a couple that are just about that size.
EmilyK
Location: Washington, Kitsap Peninsula
Posted: Apr-04-2005 at 12:13pm
Thanks for the advice so far. Yes, there is an ugly home overlooking from the top of a ridge. It is apartment-building sized and quite close to the propery line.
I was thinking that whatever it is should be fuller at the top to provide the desired screening effect. I'm not sure that a hemlock or even a couple of them would achieve that. Not much will be growing underneath whatever it is because of existing sort-of dense shade--maybe only hostas, tirella, sword ferns etc. That's in the spirit of what's already there.
Would a Photinia grow in so much shade?
EmilyK -- Port Orchard, WA
DebbieTT
Location: Washington, Kitsap Peninsula
Posted: Apr-04-2005 at 12:44pm
The ones I am going to go photograph is on the north side of trees. I wouldn't normally recommend them as they are so over done around here, but they fit your needs, especially the fast growing part.
The hemlocks done as a hedge would work well also.
Another thing this person can do while waiting for the plants to grow is build arbors with roofs on them to screen from being seen from above. Doing this closer to the house too means the screening doesn't have to be as tall. If that makes sense.
Wanda
Location: Puget Sound corridor
Posted: Apr-04-2005 at 7:55pm
Hi Emily! I just realized you might be saving bags of cedar debris for me - am I in trouble?
I'm guessing you an evergreen tree? I mean, if you really want to hide something, it seems like winter would count, too. The laurel and photinia are both evergreen as are the Cryptomeria. Why not continue the line of cedars and firs? It is hard to wait, but the better plants are the slower growers.
Let me know if I'm in trouble.
-Wanda
Lisa A
Location: Oregon, Greater Portland Metro
Posted: Apr-04-2005 at 8:10pm
deb's idea of an overhead screen is a great one. it would provide immediate privacy while the screening plants grow to provide privacy to the rest of the yard.
i think i understand your situation more. lemme think on it overnight and see if any other possibilities come to mind.
Fern
Location: Washington, Western Cascade Foothills
Posted: Apr-05-2005 at 8:24am
I think all the the ideas are good, here's a few of mine if deciduous is ok. How about dogwoods [the disease resistant ones], snowbell trees, large growing magnolias,or one of the many kinds of maples [ I recently saw a coral snakebark one I'm dying to have, where could I put yet another tree?]? If it has to be evergreen I would think twice about a photinia because they can get a leaf spot disease in the shade. I have a blue leylandii cypress that has worked well for me. Or how about a timber bamboo[ with a barrier], Calif. bay laurel, strawberry tree, tree Rhododendron, or a cryptomeria or hemlock like other people have suggested? A screen would be a great idea too.
Fern
Lisa A
Location: Oregon, Greater Portland Metro
Posted: Apr-05-2005 at 9:41am
oh, that snake bark maple, could it be Acer pensylvanicum 'Erythrocladum'? i saw this at a recent garden show - yummy, i could have used a mop to wipe up my drool. lol i'd love one but a] i really don't have space for another tree either and b] what space i have is too sunny for one of these. from what i've learned they do best with shade, especially shade on their trunk to avoid sunburn. this would be such a delicious choice because, even though it's not tall enough, the eye would stop at the bark and not travel to see the ugly home above. or it could offer interest in front of a boring screening plant.
emily, washington park arboretum has this maple [according to their website] so you and your friend could see what is looks like in the ground.
there's also acer davidii, a related form, also called snakebark maple. this one grows taller, i believe, and the bark is striped green and white, not coral and white. according to a quick google search, a. davidii 'george forrest' is a quick-growing form. this is another i considered but had to pass on because my site would give it too much sun on the bark.
another deciduous tree to consider is one of the stewartias. this is another i'd love to have but once again, they do best out of hot sun, with shaded bark.
i'd be interested to hear more about the photinia, debbie. i thought, as fern wrote, that these were prone to fungal spot in shady conditions. that said, my neighbor has a row of them in part shade conditions and they look healthy from what i can see from my den window.
the desire for a fuller top definitely limits conifer choices unless a group of them were planted to get the desired width. a neighbor has a group of 5 gold-tinged deodar cedars ['aurea' most likely] that is lovely. their height is very close to your desired height. i don't know how tall they were when planted; they are about 15 yrs old but they've been their current height, or close to it, for some years now. the new owners limbed them up so there is planting space underneath. i'd guess they are planted 7'-8' apart, which creates a very effective and lovely screen. there are also blue forms that, like the gold form, don't get as tall as the species form, iirc.
if you want more info on bamboos, check with the great folks at bamboo garden nursery for help with choices and root control requirements.
pity, we don't live in nepal where rhododendrons reach 30', 40' or even 50' in height. a friend went on a trek there some years ago and i can still remember his descriptions of his experience coming over a mountain crest to see a forest of rhododendrons in full bloom. what a stunning sight that must have been. a tree rhodo is another i'd love to have but . . . see my reasons a] and b] above. sigh.
are our suggestions getting closer to the mark for what your friend needs?
Red Hare
Location: Oregon coast
Posted: Apr-05-2005 at 2:40pm
How about vine maple? How about variegated pagoda dogwood (cornus alternifolia 'Argentea') or cornus controversa (there's one beside the folly at Heronswood - variegated foliage - gorgeous). I don't know how fast they grow, though.
I have the same problem, with neighbors behind me being higher. They can see right into my back deck and part of my yard. There are a couple old rhodies at the back of my yard, which provide some screening. I designed my living space on my new patio to be close to the rhodies, and this space is not visible to my back neighbors. Keep in mind that something can visually stop the eye from looking farther without completely obliterating the far object (in this case, big house). A well-placed umbrella can provide some privacy temporarily.
There's a difference between not wanting to see what's there (the big house), and not wanting the inhabitants of the big house to to be able to watch you.
Could bamboo be planted behind the existing trees?
Fern
Location: Washington, Western Cascade Foothills
Posted: Apr-05-2005 at 3:49pm
Lisa,
Yes, that is the tree. Beautiful but not cheap, and grafted so not easy to make a cutting of. It seems like trees grow taller in the shade. I also thought of the Katsura tree, they grow taller.
Fern
ranjanir
Location: Washington, Puget Sound Corridor
Posted: Apr-06-2005 at 9:42pm
I have a similar need and planted a styrax japonica - pink chimes. Though healthy - it has not grown enough to provide any kind of a canopy from the neighbors. i am finally getting a custom arbor with a privacy screen built. In the neighborhood I live in, not only are homes on a hill, folks constantly cut down mature doug firs and the like (either because they were topped 15 years back) - or because they'd like to preserve their view. I had half a mind to try the empress tree (I saw an ad for it in Raintree nursery). But- it does give dense shade, I believe.
Does anybody know for sure - about the empress tree. The note about it was awesome - that it grew to 30+ feet within 8 years.
Ranjani
mdvaden
Location: Oregon, Western
Posted: Apr-07-2005 at 1:27am
I was laughing at Lisa's post.
On my Advice II page, I just inserted an article about money growing on trees in reference to Leyland Cypress.
Hey, if you want a fast growing tree, what are you going to do when it reaches 25 feet? It won't stop, really. How about medium speed?
If fifteen to twenty feet is enough, maybe consider planting Photinia as a tree. Shop around for someone who has bigger specimens with more of a trunk like form.
They make really nice trees.
I grew up with tree form English Laure and thought they were lovely trees for color and form. But, the berries germinate profusely.
Photinia does not cause a weed problem.
Now, Photinia needs sum, but I've seen it do okay in partial shade.
English Laurel can be okay in many instances.
Neither of these will be found much over 20'.
M.D. Vaden
EmilyK
Location: Washington, Kitsap Peninsula
Posted: Apr-07-2005 at 10:21am
Yea!!! I actually didn't expect to receive help from MD...'Cause I knew that the Laurel would be (at the very least) a controvertial choice. I expected to be slapped-down Who hasn't seen the massive, shapeless shrubs or witnessed homeowners tangling with their overgrown hedges at least a couple of times each season? But for an individual who actually likes to prune--I threatened to take away his pruning shears for what he did to a Viburnum plicatum tomentosum--I couldn't think of another plant that would achieve the same look as an open, pruned-up and thinned-out, multi-trunked laurel.
I do appreciate all the suggestions. Some, I had considered. One thing that I did not mention in my initial post was that there are plenty of trees of the property that all look kind of like popscicles and what is really lacking are trees/shrubs that are full and screening at eye level and below (I've made a lot of other suggestions that should remedy this situation--the Viburnum being one). So many good trees, but I don't want to suggest another that is basically a trunk with a big open space around and behind it. That's why something multi-trunked or with a low and irregular canopy appealed to me. I hate looking past a trunk and seeing the fence etc. behind it--so sterile. And, while you can fill up this space with shrubs etc., you fight increasing shade/root competition when you cram stuff in under and around the drip line. So, it appears that I left out this important (to my eyes) criteria.
Thanks again, y'all, and especially to MD for throwing out the life preserver!
EmilyK -- Port Orchard, WA
Lisa A
Location: Oregon, Greater Portland Metro
Posted: Apr-07-2005 at 11:12am
I'm glad I gave you a chuckle, MD.
For those who want to read his article, you can find it here, scroll down to #30.
My neighbors planted 6 of these "living bank accounts" in their backyard. I'd laugh if it weren't for the fact that these are 1'-2' away from our shared fence, planted on 5'-6' centers. At present, they have a single trunk. Is the one in your photo, MD, a multi-trunked specimen or do they all grow that way?
Glad you got the information you needed, Emily.
cjmiller
Location: Oregon, Willamette Valley
Posted: Apr-07-2005 at 5:03pm
For a fast growing tall tree, try a locust tree, Friesia is a yellow leaved variey ( Robina freisia )They are big trees- 30ft. and up so should be shaped early on. Check out your choices with MD as he is so helpful and the ones he reviewed above do not get this tall. A good tree source is the Forest Farm catalog as they have lots of trees: www.forestfarm.com and the things I have ordered from them arrived in perfect shape. The mailman was quite curious about what was in the 6 ft tall skinny box!
Carol
Gardening for the Homebrewer: Grow and Process Plants for Making Beer, Wine, Gruit, Cider, Perry, and More
By co-authors Debbie Teashon (Rainy Side Gardeners) and Wendy Tweton