Yes, as always, rough location required to even begin to offer ideas. Glad to hear your Callery pear has put itself out of its misery. Poorly structured, weak-wooded and highly invasive in many parts of N. America. Other than that, a great tree!

;^) BTW, that's my "tongue in cheek" sign.

Sorry. I live in Maryland, in the Washington, DC suburbs. The "vacancy" left by the defunct Bradford Pear is in my front yard, at a spot that receives full sunlight all day. Thanks.

A.H., if I may, I always advise people to first decide what size and shape of tree they would like in a given location. that is, before getting distracted by flower, fruit, bark pattern, or any other aesthetic attribute, ask yourself the question-"what kind of tree wold i like in that spot-a large-growing shade tree, a smaller-at-maturity ornamental tree with showy flowers and/or fruits, a tall, narrow tree, or what? then and only then, begin to break it down depending on your answer to those basic questions. almost always, it goes the other way around: Someone sees a tree that really strikes their fancy for some reason, then they go about trying to shoehorn it into their yards. Better to start with basic questions, then go to finer details, not the other way around.

wisconsitom:

I don't know if this answers your questions.

My Bradford Pear was perfect for the location, and it was just beautiful when it flowered.

I'd like to replace it with something similar, but stronger. A tree with a strong, single trunk, a broad canopy, and aesthetically pleasing in some regard, whether it be flowering or fall foliage--something.

I can't say that I want one of those trees that grows to 50-60 feet, as the tree is not all that far from the house, but a large tree is fine. I don't want a tree that looks like a big bush.

Unfortunately most trees that grow quickly will be weak wooded. Any tree that grows quickly that isn't short lived will eventually get huge.

What about a crab apple or Winter King Hawthorn?

Yup-crab, hawthorn, serviceberry,...uh...there's more. Got it A.H. you want an ornamental tree, but it's okay for it to attain some size. A perfectly reasonable goal.

What about liriodendron tupilifera? its a beautiful fast growing tree that can take on a nice shape.

You might consider paperbark maple or Japanese Stewartia. Or if fast growth is really critical, there's always the ubiquitous red maple.

Whats a good smallish Acer rubrum (red maple) cultivar for his area?

Speaking of long lived and fast growing....

Google Metasequoia "Ogon". Its the thinner bright yellow needled one with the smooth trunk. More of an all summer long accent piece. It gets 1" cones your mower will digest readily but no showy flowers. It has yellow leaves so it just CAN'T get as tall as the species, mine's growing as fast upward if not outwards though.

Regular Metasequoia when limbed up might do, but I picture a Bradford having a smaller footprint.

I think she's made it pretty clear she's after an ornamental type. That sure ain't Liriodendron, Metasequoia, et al......all great trees-some of my favorites-but rather off the intended goal here I think.

Aesculus pavia (Scarlet buckeye) are gorgeous trees.

Liriodendron have flowers, so they count as ornamental...sort of a giant ornamental. Maybe a bit big for someone looking to replace a Bradford pear.

Metasequoia is probably way outside of what she wants.

A couple of other options would be a saucer magnolia or Yoshino cherry.

Maybe I'm alone here in regarding the term ornamental to specifically limit the discussion to things like crabs, hawthorns, etc. In my world, Liriodendron-the current tallest-growing eastern tree following the demise of Am. chestnut-as something else altogether. Not that these kinds of trees are not "ornamental". It's just a convention in tree talk to make that distinction. If no words really have a pinned-down meaning, we can just say anything. Of course, it will have no meaning!