When do you want the effect? How long do you want to wait for the effect? How long do you want the effect to last? How much maintenance are you willing to commit to to achieve or maintain any of these situations?

A tree is not a static object.

Laag has answered your questions with questions. Seems to me that you've dipped into the legend and lore of this forum. Good stuff, isn't it? Laag can give you better information than I can, although I'm not sure he caught your couch reference. Sounds like you're already thinking about the change-over-time aspect of your landscape.

Also some folks purchase tiny saplings. Others get pros to put in large specimens. Might make a difference in how a particular choice works for you.

Earlier today I reread some quotes I'd gathered about trees. Here's a couple that I thought you might appreciate:

Did you measure to attain your height?
Did you use geometry to radiate your limb?
Did you lament storm-torn branches?
Did you inventory your leaves for the sun?
You did none of these things, yet we in our cleverness
Cannot match your perfection.
(Deng Ming-Dao)

Alone with myself
The trees bend
To caress me
The shade hugs
My heart.
(Candy Polgar)

Wellspring

I haven't the words, but I am grinning from ear to ear.

The part of this interesting question that I can't get my head around is: are we talking about one tree in an otherwise vacant (apart from the house) lot? Also, I would consider a hawthorn to be an ornamental tree and in terms of weight of form it is never going to compete with or compliment the house in the way a shade tree such as a maple would. By compliment I mean possibly 'framing' and this effect can be seen in almost any landscape painting you look at. If the house is standing in a vacant lot I doubt that you will achieve this effect in a hurry.

That's it--ink. You've hit the nail on the head for me, I think. It is an ornamental tree: it's what I'd call a "girly" tree. It isn't "manly" like a maple. I like "manly" trees, but they don't grow here. Poplars and Aspens are all we get for natives.

However, it isn't a vacant lot. There are mature trees at the front and sides between the sidewalk and the road (known as the boulevard--likely Aspens))(It's a corner lot) and the only neighbour has a Big White Birch (with branches that extend out, up and then down). There is a sizeable Mountain Ash to the side of the house as well.

But you are right: an Hawthorne isn't going to "frame" anything. It just isn't going to be big enough--even when the lot is 40 feet wide and deep and the house only a story and 1/2 high.

Nonetheless, my gut says there are too may other large trees around for another large tree. And shade isn't needed.

So, without a tree, how do you "frame" the house? How does one get height? (Of one's own--all the other trees are totally out of my control).

Meanwhile, I'll point out it's spelled hawthorn, with no 'e'.

Right.

Hawthorn
Hawthorn
Hawthorn

Got it--why do I want to spell it with an "e"?--aaaah, right...Nathaniel.

(I hope it isn't too soon for an attempt at humour.)

Sorry, I should have asked--what difference would the presence of other trees make?

Plant an ornamental tree where you can see it the most.

In other words, where you will see the flowers, and berries, and color the greatest number of times throughout the day, week, year. You will want to enjoy an ornamental tree from the house ( perhaps from the kitchen sink or a picture window or an entrance) and also, while driving up to the house,and while enjoying your yard whether front or back.

Use it as a focal point without blocking an important view ( if there is one)

If the tree is expected to reach 20'wide ( check on that , it sounds small for a hawthorn) plant the tree 15'+ feet from a house at a minimum. Use half the diameter plus some breathing/ future house painting room.

Set the tree in place in its pot, then look at it from all the mentioned angles, for a day or 2, imagining it at its full size........you will know when its right.

For what its worth, thats my recommendation. deb

A thing that is the same as it would be in interior design is that you make your placements for the same reason. First is the general function,usually a given. Then you get to the aesthetics where it is very similar in that the other things in the room influence the visual impact of where you put an item.

A room is a little les variable in that a lot of placement is function oriented and has to be. You can't very well place an end table four feet from a couch and expect it to be used. Because of that and the limits of the walls, there are not a lot of choices when it comes to spacing of major items.

More similarities exist between the placement of a tree and the placement of room accessories than of pieces of functional furniture. You might want to view it as selecting and placing a lamp after the rest of the room is designed. All of those other things in the room from color patterns, to height of ceiling, where windows are, .... to length of drapes can all influence that decision. The reason is simply that it has to visually fit the situation. The lamp would not look the same and more importantly, the room would not look the same if any of the other significant elements of the room were to change.

It is no different in the landscape. The two trees in the parkway between the sidewalk and road may affect the placement of your tree in a big way or not. A fence running down the side lot line of your property would make a difference in the tree's placement if the fence was 12' from the house or 30' from the house, whether it was 3' high or 6' high. The background view of what is seen behind the tree and house influences both how the tree looks and how the house and tree function together aesthetically.

A quantitative answer on where to place your tree is only as good as the information that is given to work with. It limits the objectives and therefore makes them easier to meet, but chances are that you want more out of the tree than that of the limited objectives that can be communicated this way. The best you can hope for from a forum like this on a subject such as this is to be given more to think about in order to broaden your objectives and get to a stronger course of action.

Visual weight has as much to do with what it is balanced against. If you think about the classic balance scale where you put one obect on one side and balance it with objects on the other side, you have to remember that you can not be selective in what goes into the tray on the other side when it comes to visual weight. You can't simply compare the tree to the house because the trays are filled with everything that your eye takes in not just the house and the tree. Some of those existing things wind up in the tree's tray and some wind up in the house's tray. If you move the tree, some of the things in the house's tray move to the tree's tray or vice versa.

I know it does not answer your specific question. Based on your original question and its limited context, you should put the tree 25' from the house rotating it around toward the front of the house so that it slightly interupts the line of the edge of the house from the viewpoint to frame it and ground it. I somehow believe you want more objectives met than that.

On another note...it sounds to me as though you think a tree which gets 20 feet across is 20 feet from the trunk to the outer branches. In fact, it would be ten feet (plus or minus) from the trunk to the tip of the branches...all the way around. So that may inform your decision somewhat. From a practical standpoint, one wants a decorative tree far enough away from the house so that the branches won't scrape the house.

melanie

Yes, embarassing mistake, that. The circumferance (spread) is 20' not the radius.

Thank you for your thoughtful and lengthly reply, laag. Interesting you mentioned a fence. I drew a "fence-line" in MS Paint on a photo of the front of the house--and you are right, the "tray" --merely containing the left and right sides of the house without any plantings on my property "tipped." (And has left me with yet another conundrum.)

You said, "The best you can hope for from a forum like this on a subject such as this is to be given more to think about in order to broaden your objectives and get to a stronger course of action."

Ok, what's next?

"More to think about"
Bring it on.

Any particular threads I should read? I have read "How do I see?" and one on "scale and proportion".

Do I read a book, do more mock-ups? Arrange salt and pepper shakers (and so on) on the table? Draw blobs? All of the above?

I appreciate everyone's willingness to take the time to educate me.

Deciduous trees are accent points in the garden with line patterns in winter that can be interesting to study. Planting a lot of different kinds close together can produce a cluttered effect ( whereas a number of the same kinds near one another is a grove, with the grouping being the landscape feature rather than the individual trees). Each tree has what has been termed a sphere of influence, a sort of visual territory that extends some distance from its branches. Other trees intruding on this space around it produce a conflict. Trees also establish a scale for the scene they inhabit, as do buildings. Unless a tree and a structure are on the same scale the tree will not be visually effective, appearing too small if not approaching the building in size - and making the building appear small if too large.

Similarly, individual small trees planted near or beneath solitary large trees create a David and Goliath effect. For a relaxing and gracious atmosphere it is better to group shrubs around individual trees, and space the trees out like acacias in a savannah. Where collecting maximum numbers of kinds or other objectives are priorities over producing a gentle scene then packing 'em in will be done instead.

Interesting. No, fascinating. Tonight, while we take our evening stroll in the neighbourhood I look for this:

Unless a tree and a structure are on the same scale the tree will not be visually effective, appearing too small if not approaching the building in size - and making the building appear small if too large.

From what I have seen already, I am beginning to think there aren't any trees (or very few) that are "in scale" with our story-and-a-half houses in our climate. Of course, what's on the ground affects scale..so I'll keep my eyes peeled.

Lots of small-growing trees are sold and planted. Hundreds of kinds of Japanese maples for instance.

... and they are all ineffective?

"what difference would the presence of other trees make?" moving on to "I am beginning to think there aren't any trees (or very few) that are "in scale" with our story-and-a-half houses in our climate". These are all excellent questions with more than one answer so make sure that this is not a holy grail quest. Scale and proportion are relatives (not your mother in law) and what the controlling factor is is open to interpretation and both of your questions point to this quandary. A lone tree planted in the centre of a lawn demands that it is the centre of attention, the grass is back up and the house is irrelevant. Another tree planted in this situation would create an entirely different dynamic i.e. one salt shaker and one pepper shaker makes sense. In your second question you make an assumption (always a bad move) that the house is the mother in law, sorry centre of attention and all must revolve around her/it.

Good of you to catch that ink. Indeed, I am making that assumption. One can have abstract discussions to some extent, but you can't ever have a discussion without an assumption of some sort and it's good to clarify them.

And we're not discussing a tree "in the abstract" as it were--but as it relates to a house. That's the whole framework of the topic "where do I plant a tree?" At least I thought I made that clear in my initial post, my apologies for not communicating well, if not.

I'm interested in what you meant by this statement:
what the controlling factor is is open to interpretation and both of your questions point to this quandary

Is the "controlling factor" that which you are putting on the "scales"--to use Laag's metaphor--in this case the story and 1/2 house, the lot, and so on? Or is it the objective--to make the house and yard "look nice," to attract birds, to catch the wind, to shade the house, to protect the house from winter wind, to name a few nonexclusive possible objectives? The objectives are answered by the question "what do I plant", however, and not "where do I plant it"--that is an aesthetic discussion involving all of the above considerations of balance, scale, and proportion.

So, I'm not sure what you mean by a "controlling factor"?

About Maples: I've found and have been referring to a study done by our Ministry of Agriculture on woody shrubs and trees while I research what to invest my time and money in.

Reading that would scare anyone off planting maples. (Though there is a variety that grows like a d*mn weed around here.) I linked to it, in case anyone wants to expand their plant knowledge to Zone 3!

(I'm digging out the nasty root system of a Thuja shrub today. This discussion is a most welcome distraction on my "breaks.")

Here is a link that might be useful: Analysis of Study on Maple Hardiness

This is very interesting to me, as scale and proporition are difficult to size up properly.

For the mature trees scraplolly's yard (picture in other posting), the scale is vastly greater than the house, as only trunks are visible. The mature trees may be proportional to one another, but not the house.

The mature tree trunks that are visible are on the scale of the house, but out of proportion with it.

I must be missing something, but would the understory trees or smaller tree advocated by Bboy bring the landscape and house to scale and aid in maintaing proportionality?

Scale: A certain proportionate size, extent or degree usually judged in relation to some standard or point of reference. In other words the scale of hawthorn to house where the house is the standard or controlling factor is different from the scale of hawthorn to say ornamental grass in another picture. As to the rest, sarcasm when I am trying to help does not light my candle so please continue without me.

No sarcasm intended, but you said an assumption was always a bad move. It isn't. It's only inevitable and it is always good to clarify.

And the "controlling factor" is whatever it is you are trying to make the object, in this case a tree, "proportionate" to. Now I understand. Next time I won't try to guess what you mean (though I do tend to think "out loud" while I type).

The only sarcasm I see here is yours, Ink.
We can't have it both ways, you know, wishing for more theoretical discussions and then checking out as soon as we don't like the theory.

KarinL

Okay then scraplolly sorry for being edgy maybe paranoid but I have to be careful what I say as there are people waiting in the wings to pounce on me, evidence above.
My point about making assumptions was that it is possible to think yourself into a box, a point that wellspring made early on and this way makes it difficult to see the forest for trees (if you will excuse me). Perhaps introducing another perspective, bboy says "Trees also establish a scale for the scene they inhabit," would help to show a bigger picture where the house is one of many features and not necessarily the point of reference.

I have been following this discourse with interest. If needed, how does one place a tree in relationship to structures and surrounds? That is the question with which I have wrangled numerous times. Hopefully, scraplolly, you with an interior design interest will understand my approach (solution) to the dilemma. I go back to the tried and true interior decorating rule...triangles. How do you arrange objects on a mantlepiece? Set them them so triangular patterns are formed.

Return to Laag's suggestion that your tree be planted off of and slightly in front of the house. Do a quick sketch. Where can you set the tree in that approximate location so that a triangular pattern is formed between house side, roof gable and tree. Play around a bit. Perhaps the triangle design should be playing off taller trees and house, etc. See if thinking in triangles helps you to reason out your problem.

Ink--please accept my apologies, too. I was angry when I wrote my reply to you, so while I did not intend to be sarcastic, rereading it today after I've calmed down, I can see why you took it so. It is most gracious of you to apologise first and I truly appreciate it.

Thanks for the triangulation suggestion Nandina. I can't help wondering, though, what size triangle? On a mantle, the depth is a given. On a forty foot lot it isn't--at least to me.

I think it was in a book by a fellow names Hayward who said "take the height of the front of the house (or the length of the house, or something) and use that for the depth, and then adjust by eye." I've returned the book to the library already though, and can't check it. Susankah says something similiar (that the depth of the front plantings should come out as far as the house is tall).

As for the other issues, I'm thinking on them. I need some time to absorb and assimilate.

I can't help but think of timescale in relation to overall scale. When the tree is planted - unless you can afford the cost of installing a substantial tree to begin with - the initial tree is likely to be very small and 'out of scale' on the small side to the size of the house. It will likely take many years before the tree achieves the scale balance you envision when you plant it. Many people may have moved on to another home by the time the tree grows to be 'in scale' with the house. So, when you plant it, do you base the planting point/choose the type of tree based on the expected size of the tree during a reasonable portion of your projected tenure in the house or on the ultimate mature size even though you may not be there to see it? If you go the route of planting small, what are the best ways to make the scale look right while you wait for it to grow? When we bought this house there was a mature ash in the backyard and a somewhat scrawy red oak that looked anemic relative to the house and the large ash. We ended up planting a reasonably large woodland garden bed under the oak which seemed to help make the tree look more in scale to the house and the ash. Now, nine years after moving here, the oak is taller than the house with wide-spreading lower branches that are starting to be out of scale in the other direction! (Some limb removal is on the schedule for this coming winter...)

All of that is one of the reasons I see gardening as a journey not a destination - there are no fixed end points so I choose a time scale that makes sense to me, knowing that things will look too small to begin with and will eventually reach a point where they are too big and need removal or renovation - which may or may not be an issue that someone else (subsequent homeowner) has to deal with, rather than me. The end result of my view of time and scale is I don't spend a lot of time obsessing about a 'right' answer, just the one that seem most right for the timescale I'm planning for and try to come up with ways that feel right to adjust the apparent scale in the period when the trees are small.

So, when you plant it, do you base the planting point/choose the type of tree based on the expected size of the tree during a reasonable portion of your projected tenure in the house or on the ultimate mature size even though you may not be there to see it?

Perennials and small stuff I overplant...I plant for impact NOW. But trees and shrubs? I plant for the future. I had to take out a (formerly)lovely Prunus mume that got black knot...in large part because it was planted next to a wall that compromised it. I'm certain the tree looked lovely when planted. But 10 years on it had to come out. Made me sad, it was a pretty little tree.

Does anyone not catch the common denominator in just about every post on this thread? It is simply that after you understand how much room the tree takes and what conditions it needs to thrive, the placement is affected by how it relates to what is around it. I don't know how many ways it needs to be said. I don't know why why scaploly wants to keep coming back with what is essentially a "yeah, but ...." only to be told the same thing in a different way.

Only the OP knows what is at and around that site to affect those relationships. It is information driven and we don't have and can not get all the information. It is garbage in and garbage out as one of my professors always said (along with "you could do a Master's Thesis on this"). This is a good lesson for someone contemplating hiring an on-line design service.

Until someone can give quantifiable measurements, this will go on forever. Where is Plsx88 from Arkansas on this?

Andrew- I think Scrap may need to play with the broomstick a little longer. Am I remembering that story at all correctly? Your father, I think, encouraging you to design your way around a broom stuck in the ground? I guess I'd say that one definition of learning is "to be told the same thing in a different way" until the information becomes one's own. It's a fform of play.

I have only the one landscape to play with in my mind. I can't even walk the neighborhood to test out the ways that suggestions here might help or hinder how I size up a problem. Scrap is. Reading books, walking the neighborhood, asking questions here, that is. My confusion with Scrap's post is that s/he seems to be trying to get the principle down in such a way that s/he can hold on to it when s/he is looking elsewhere, not just at his/her own landscape. At the same time Scrap seems to want an answer for a specific need. That's where I'm getting lost

Reading your post helped me to read the thread again more inteligently. Once upon a time I was very good at math. Try doing calc in your head. When I read posts like this one I try to picture it in my mind. I'm not very good at it, but each perspective gives me something more to work with. At this point I have salt and pepper shakers, a mantle piece, the hawthorn, a lamp, a fence, a house, and Hawthorne floating around in my brain space.

Where's that broomstick?

Wellspring

I think I have the answer. This question is a follow on from an earlier post. I've only just seen it there are pictures and everything making a lot of the comments above, certainly mine, a bit off base. The other post is a more general design question and the replies led scrap to this (forgive me if I have this wrong). So back to square one I think. You are right that it is better to start from a premise (or assumption)than a blank slate but when this is turned over it is a mistake to latch on to another one that denies the process that went into the original because then you are walking down a blind alley. None of this is meant to put you down.

Patience, gentlemen, patience. You have given me a lot to think over. What follows is impossibly long, but as I say at the bottom, I want to keep learning, so I've taken the time to explain myself. Hopefully, it may help not only future exchanges between us, but also other discussions with other "newbies."

As well, there's an extremely valuable discussion here that needs to be re-focused--it isn't about me, but trees and what they do. I hope this helps us get back on that track.

I didn't mean to confuse anyone. And I suppose I've made several assumptions about having a discussion here that were a bit off base, as well, which is evident in my approach. I'm learning, though, and I want to continue to learn from you all, so I hope you'll cut me a bit of slack.

Firstly, I like to approach problems from a general point of view and then apply that to a particular circumstance. That is why I am reading the books, walking the neighbourhoods, etc. And I guess that's why it may seem I'm jumping back and forth between the "abstract" and the "particular."

Yes, this thread is a continuation of my first thread--someone there did recommend I plant a tree--the next question, for me, was "where?" I started a separate thread because, well, I was embarrassed by the plan I drew, and I thought, "I wonder what factors I need to consider" when thinking about where to plant a tree.

I also assumed I'd want a "small" tree, about 20 feet tall or so, in order not to block the views from and to the house.

I've learned far more than just, "the placement depends on what is around it," however. I've learned that:

1) I have no idea of size and scale when it comes to a landscape. For example, I hadn't known that a tree 20' tall is considered "small!"

2) I really do need to consider time. We do intend to be here until the the kids pack us off to a nursing home, but how long am I willing to wait for a tree to reach maturity?

3) A tree is more like the lamp than a sofa (which, by the way is so counter-intuitive to me, I need a week to absorb that piece of information alone.) (In fact, I'm tempted to start another thread that starts, "What's a sofa?")

4) I don't know whether my lot is large or small--

5) I have no idea how to divide the space horizontally, nor vertically and a tree does both.

6)) I don't know how to balance on this scale.

7. I thought I wanted a front yard that looked nice from the sidewalk, now I'm not so sure that's the overriding criterion.

8) trees create a scale of reference. They have a sphere of influence--and create vertical lines. (Ok, I knew they created vertical lines, but somehow I'm understanding that a bit more deeply.)

9) Most valuable, though, is that I'm beginning to understand that a tree sculpts space.

These are excellent things to know.

I've been working on altering a photo of the house and yard to post to this thread, to move the discussion from the general (which does seem to be spinning in circles) to the specifics of my lot: and yet, given 1) small trees, other than Mountain Ash don't seem to be terribly hardy, here, 2) my shifting and sliding priorities for the front yard, 3) the limitations of the camera (in that in only captures a view from one vantage point and it's framing may be misleading) and 4) I'm wondering if I even want a tree at all. I'm hesitant to do so.

Laag mentioned that the most I could hope for was "more to think about in order to broaden my objectives." That doesn't sound like an invitation to post a picture and discuss my property--it sounds like an opportunity to learn more about how the placement of a tree affects balance, symmetry, scale, spheres of influence, form, etc.

And if the "most" (and it's a lot) I can learn from a thread like this is all that, then the most you can expect from me, perhaps, --until I've got some idea of all that-- is the response, "yeah but."

However, it doesn't all have to happen in this thread, nor this week!

I hope this helps you clear up your confusion about me and my approach to the question. The last thing I want to do is irritate, antagonize, or otherwise alienate anyone. I'm here to learn as much as I can.

Scrap, I should have said that the most ANYONE can hope for from this thread is "more to think about in order to broaden their objectives". I'm essentially saying that we can not get all of the information of what may influence the placement of the tree by way of a messageboard. That is not to say that you are lacking in getting it across, but that the medium does not lend itself well. In other words, it would be much easier to point out the inluences if we were on-site.

I also believe that you are getting a lot out of the thread. I did not mean to give the idea that "the most you can hope for" was something of little value. It can be of great value and can help you get to feeling confident in the placement of the tree. But, you will have to make that placement on your own.

As I was the person, or one of the people, who recommended a tree in the other thread (linked below), it might help too for me to clarify why I did so. Scrap lives among several large trees, at least one of which I think will probably need to be removed within ten or fifteen years (once you've lived with a tree that is pushing your boundaries, you anticipate the stage).

Generally, trees are planted when one actually wants a big one, but of course they can only be planted small, and then the person who plants them is usually not around to enjoy the phase they planted it for. So it makes sense to me to plant in advance if you can. It isn't always possible, since big trees sometimes make planting in their vicinity impossible, or the removal process will damage a replacement tree. But in Scrap's case it struck me that pre-planting, while still enjoying the neighbour's birch, might be possible. And if in the end you don't like the tree, it can (to answer a question on the other thread) be moved for a few years, or heaven forbid, removed entirely.

As for "what are the principles," the foregoing discussion does show that anyone can get the principles listed, but the real trick is in applying the principles. And it is tricky! Going from the particular to the general generally works better for a thread. If you ask "what should I do here" then people will often tell you why.

KarinL

Thank you both.

By all means, if anyone wants to suggest where I ought to plant a particular tree on my lot, use the thread KarinL has linked to.