It's also dwarfing the house visually - the only reason to keep it is if you want the shade it provides.

Look, I'm a tree-positive person. But it already sounds like you've already made up your mind and you already know what the rest of us can deduce about this tree.

It's running with the wrong crowd. It's probably doing nitrogen IV drugs. It's probably slipping out at night and knocking over the local Home Depot to steal fertilizer bags. It's a bad tree. And it's so big already it can take you down and you can't do anything about it.

You don't sound like you're emotionally attached to it, you don't like the tree, you dislike what the tree's doing, and it's too big for your tastes.

If that's all true, get rid of it. At that size, though, get an expert. One wrong cut and it's going into the house, your neighbor's yard, somebody's car, or the city street.

Put in something more to your tastes when the physical and emotional wounds heal. And yes, there do tend to be emotional wounds. We get attached to our trees, even the ugly and unpleasant ones. Let yourself mourn and adjust visually to an empty space before deciding on something new or you're likely to decide on something that'll get too large again.

Embothrium- Indeed it does. Thank you for the comment.

Morpheuspa- I am most certainty leaning towards getting rid of it and have already gotten estimates for both a trimming and removal. I will not touch this beast outside of lower trimming. I will say that it looks much more menacing in the pictures.

I feel like I am after only 2 years in the home, though not nearly the same as if I had planted it.

It will take some time to adjust.. Thank you for the positive words.

It's beautiful. Leave it please.

I would cut it down. It is difficult to be the envy of the neighborhood with a beautiful tree like yours. When you cut it down, and replace it with a sprig from Lowes, you will never again have to worry about the tree in your front yard. Even if you replace it with a flowering tree it will start being a decent tree long after you have move from the house.

Cutting it down will make make your now sun baked house like every other house on the street.

If you have not realized it I am being sarcastic. That tree makes your home unique and adds significantly to the value of you home. It has been maintained and it appears here are no branches that are interfering with your home.

Why would you cut that down? I don't care if its a Norway maple in this situation as it look happy, well maintained, provides significant shade (I can't tell you how much I despise the sun in my yard right now) and there are so many houses in a row with out a tree in the front.

It boggles my mind when I see older homes with nothing in the front yard.

If the idea of being liliputian and living in a liliputian neighborhood appeals to you, by all means keep it :-)

You could have it thinned out rather drastically (NOT TOPPED), and that would open it up and allow alot more light in (I've seen it done quite expertly long ago on Norway maples). However, the art of doing that has in many places disappeared and hardly any "tree people" know about or can perform it anymore.

Significant crown reduction is significant crown reduction whether it is done to the inside or the outside - a tree will still have lost a large proportion of branches and foliage in either case, will be affected and respond accordingly. The maple being asked about here already has had too much stripping of the lower canopy in response to its presence and proximity to be a truly attractive example.

Too small of a front yard and too late to prune such a large tree and have it still look good. Should have been structure pruned years ago.

It's not only shading your house but shading your arborvitaes and other placements, more than they like. Everything would do better without it.

Not sure if that's the North side of the house but if that is true, would hasten it's removal imo. A south side site would help with shade during the summer but I would'n't let that be my reason for keeping it.

I appreciate all of your comments.

Bill- It faces west in southern Wisconsin

I would not have such a problem with it IF it looked good. But the structure is pretty bad. Therefore, homely. I would hate to devote my ENTIRE front yard to a homely plant.

It has outgrown its spot. If it was a good tree, it would be worth spending the money for a good trim but this one needs to go. The next 80 mph storm is likely to take it down and damage your house and/or cars. It won't get any cheaper or easier to tackle the tree so might as get it over with so you can plant a better replacement.

About 10 days ago, I had my somewhat smaller Norway Maple removed because it was getting too big for its space. Coincidentally, about 3 hours later, my block was at the center of a nasty storm and virtually every house lost major branches or entire trees. Controlled destruction beats storm damage in my opinion.

If you are cutting it down because of the roots, remember that even if you grind the the stump the roots will remain. My lot was cleared about 10 years ago I still have roots appearing in the yard that have no assignable source.

Maples don't produce runners

I'd keep it. I'd limb it up though

I would cut it down, dig (or burn) out ALL the roots, and plant 3 dwarf Japanese maples in a grouping maybe 10 feet apart.

Maybe you can go in with your neighbor down the street to remove two eyesore trees at the same time and get a quantity discount.

In my experience Maple roots come to the surface, and make it difficult to maintain a yard. To completely remove the roots would mean dig up the total area at least to the drip line down a foot.

It was mentioned that the tree was misshapen. Its shape looks like every Maple I have ever seen.

Personally after following the thread I think the OP had decided to take the tree out and was looking for justification to convince his significant other.

In a way, yes. I truly am very indecisive in regards to it (And in general). One day it's " Rip that thing out!" and the next "Oh, It's not that bad".

It's only me and this is my first go at all this stuff so It's good to get other peoples opinions.

You should see if there is some sort of arbor-fund in your area, and get folks in your street to plant trees. It would greatly enhance your property values and general well being.

SE WI is riddled with this type of landscaping unfortunately.

This is a well pruned Norway Maple btw. I‘ve seen literally thousands of them.

Japanese Maples would die in a heartbeat with western exposure in southern WI.

Lastly these roots will die, rot and improve the soil If you cut the tree down. You only need to grind the stump. Pending your new plant you would need to remove additional roots.

Good luck on the decision.

I don’t understand how it’s out of scale, only big houses can have big trees?

Whass- I came from North Chicagoland and it's no different in SE Wisc in regards to the amount trees. Even my parents old neighborhood in a more affluent area of Lake county has slowly gotten rid of trees on private land. Street/public trees still remain in what I'd consider average numbers. Their block alone lost 4 large mature front yard trees the last 2 years they were there.

Clark- It's a very large tree in the space that it's in and still getting bigger. It also make my tiny house look out of scale so it throws things off in this particular case. Space it out and it wouldn't be an issue. It's 12' from the house.

I'd agree - Chicago and Milwaukee along with the Suburbs have similar and relatively lower tree coverage that many other cities.

What I meant is lack of diversity. 80% (Super SWAG) of the houses built 1950 to 1990 have "a" blue spruce or "a" norway maple or "a" silver maple. In the 80s/90s you started seeing more switch to Norway Spruce. Now people don't even plant trees. Of course these are just observational generatlites - but I spend most of my time as a passenger to observe the landscape. Plus decent travel.

There are several homes in my subdivison sitting pretty on 1+ acre with 0 to 3 trees. That boggles my mind. Me on the other hand I just have a problem and just continue to plant.

If you do take it out we can give a host of recommendations. Not sure where in southern WI you are but Millegars and Minors have a good selection of tree types. Minors I know for sure but I haven't been to Millegars in years. Johnsons which is probably too far north has the greatest seleciton in WI - perhaps in the top 10 for the midwest.

Japanese Maples would die in a heartbeat with western exposure in southern WI.

What? Why? The first ones I saw were in Dayton, but we have them all across Texas in the full sun.

'Why?'

Probably 'winter burn'. March is the worst time of year.

Here in Utah, we have some really big tall trees, in the subdivision just West of me, here in the North. In my newer subdivision of three years, the city and Utah has a request that you call '811' -- 'Before You Dig' campaign before planting shrubs / trees, put in sprinklers, so one doesn't cut or splice a utility line especially. So, I feel Brad needs to consider if the tree's roots system is going to be a nuisance in breaking a water line, a gas line, sewer line, etc., which can be seen via video cameras now like by plumbing/sewer companies for a small fee. To me, that is one of the most important reasons to let it stay, or take it down. Personally, like big trees like that, brings up some memories of my Grandma's Maple Tree on the avenues in Ogden that we would sit under and sit in, in the Summer when visiting, and throwing bread to the local Gulls. One thing the the USU Extension, out of Logan, recommends is that you deep water the tree at least once a week, to help it establish a good deep root system, so that they are less likely to blow over in a very strong wind(s) like we get here out of even the smallest of canyons, where I live next to, closer to the East mountains (Wasatch range). Tough decisions -- When living in the Seattle area, late 1990's, we bought a home that had Cedar Trees and Hemlock Trees leaning towards our rambler, and don't know why the lady had left them doing so. We contracted at a huge expense to 'cut-them-down' because after questioning our insurance agency, they would only 'fix' the house after the trees fell on our home, so it was a no-brainer to cut them down, even though it was fun to live where it felt like we were vacationing in a 'cabin in the woods' year-round, something we couldn't do in the dryer state of Utah, except in the mountains, and only during the normal three Summer months (parent's cabin), after the Winter snow had finally melted on roads to get to the cabin. Finally after negotiations to get the price to include two more trees, they took almost 20 trees down round-by-round. Most of the trees, even the Cedar ones had Termites in the centers of them, so they might have eventually have come down via Winter winds, on the house, which did not want because of not wanting to be homeless while home was being repaired. -- On Brad's tree, would 'saw-off' the more 'horizontal' branches for now, the lower ones in pictures three and four, East (over the driveway) and West branches (over the sidewalk), that don't have much of an uplift to them, that might drag the tree down if branches caught the wind and heavy water load in a windy Winter storm. -- Good luck Brad, on your decision, which you and your wife can make, with the many concerns we have shared with you, and the love of trees. By the way, shade is nice and coool (when we take the time to sit in it, or shades our house for less (air conditioning), and you have done a great job in helping grass to grow under your tree, so you're doing a great job on your lot. Green thumb ? :-)

As you can see i'm on a really small lot. The sewer, waterline and gas are all within maybe 20' of each other and the house 10-12' from it.. The tree is 3' from the sewer and the sewer is roughly 5-7' deep. So keeping those free from damage is of the utmost importance. So far only the lateral has had roots that were cleaned out when I moved in and are treated a couple times per year without further issue. I will most certainly check for utilities before I make my next move so that you for that suggestion.

Ideally I'd love to have a tree in front but the pros far outweigh the cons on this specimen. Just not worth the risk. If I wasn't going to be here for a while I'd probably leave it.

We have to cherish the moments we've had with trees and it's always sad to see them go, esp if they're healthy.

When an object that appears large is located near an object that appears small the latter looks even smaller. Think of how a small person by themselves in a setting where there is nothing else nearby to provide a sense of scale appears. And then how that same person suddenly looks if a big and tall individual walks up and stands next to them. Even though a tree and a house aren't the same kind of object the effect produced when the house is small to begin with and the tree is big looking is the same.

The maple being discussed here also looks too big for the size of the lawn it occupies. This is the same kind of visual effect as when shrubs are planted in beds that are very much narrower in width than the height of the shrubs is, making the shrubs appear thereby too tall. Whereas in a sufficiently deep bed the same shrubs might not even appear tall at all.

Hope you have it removed, it looks very dangerous for your home. It’s way too big and too close.