just wondering, why do people clear out ALL the trees on their lot

[Jeannie in NJ]

we have been looking at houses for a bit now. Most of the houses are on wooded lots which we want but some houses we have looked at the owners has fenced in the yard and cleared out every single tree. We are finding this more often than you would think. I mean the yard will not have a single bush or tree, just grass but the neighbors on both sides, behind, etc will have lots of trees. Depending on the area, the trees are mostly either oak or pines. What would be the reason to remove all the trees? Allergies, want more sun, etc? We are trying to drive by the houses now before we schedule a showing to go see it as we have no interest in a treeless yard but sometimes it is difficult to tell exactly what the back yard looks like.

[Tap]

Many reasons...here are a few I can think of.

 

No leaves/less leaves to deal with.

Wanting an area for kids to play games like football without running into a tree.

Trees died/ were not replaced.

Tree roots causing a problem

Septic system placement

Sunlight

Some people feel a bit claustrophobic under lots of trees.

Fear of trees falling over onto the house.

Landscaping style

Large trees often grow over the top of the house and deposit leaves in the gutters/ damage the roof.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Tap, tap, tap

[itsheresomewhere]

In our case, someone planted pine trees up against the house. Those had to go for safety reasons. And same people had a small planter in the middle of the patio, so they planted a giant oak tree in it:glare:.

[Jeannie in NJ]

some of the houses we have looked at not only had all trees removed, but there are no bushes, flowers, plants, etc. just grass and a tall white vinyl fence . Def. not our style. I don't think it could be a matter of maintenance as we have tons of flowering bushes, holly bushes, holly trees, pine trees and a cherry tree in our current yard and the only thing we ever have to do is trim back bushes every once in a while, nothing major. Our style is the more green things the better lol.

[jewellsmommy]

In our case, someone planted pine trees up against the house. Those had to go for safety reasons. And same people had a small planter in the middle of the patio, so they planted a giant oak tree in it:glare:.

 

 

We have that here too. We rent a house, and the deck is being destroyed by the root system of this tree. It has outgrown the boxed section it was in.

 

I like trees in general, but I do not like the ones that keeps dropping branches. There are some safety-hazard trees in our yard.

[kokotg]

I love trees, and right now I live in the middle of the woods. We're about to move to house on a nearly treeless (there are a couple of ornamental trees in the front yard) lot, though, and I'm kind of excited about it. I'll probably plant some trees (maybe some fruit trees), but, yeah...disadvantages of having lots of trees to deal with:

 

*trees mean squirrels, who can get in your attic (although we haven't had this problem)

*lots of leaves to rake and deal with

*branches falling

*branches rubbing against roof and damaging it

*allergies

*branches and trees falling and causing damage.

*pine trees especially I worry about with tornadoes.

*lack of sun for gardening

[wapiti]

My guess would be that in many cases, the developer/builder did the clear cutting for ease of construction purposes.

[Jeannie in NJ]

thanks everyone a lot of these reasons I had not even thought of.

[KungFuPanda]

[hillfarm]

Possibly pollen. When the pine trees are in bloom in my area, the yellow dusty pollen is so thick INSIDE my house that you can write your name in it. It coats the car windshields outside so much that everyone lines up at the local car wash to spray it off, just so we can see to drive around!

[lynn]

AFter having seen the damage trees can do during a strong storm and a tornado I do not want any trees near my home ever!

[Jane in NC]

I live in an area prone to tropical weather events. Some people think they are better off without trees because of potential storm activity. The downside is that our native trees consume hundreds of gallons of water after a storm. If the trees removed, then manmade storm water systems like retention ponds need to be engineered. Yuck. I'd rather have trees than drainage ditches and manmade ponds with weeds in them.

 

Ultimately I think trees are cheaper than engineered storm water systems. Maybe this is why Charleston, SC, has a plan to plant hundreds of live oaks? Ever been in the historic district there when it rains?

 

Jane (a fan of the Lorax from way back)

[fhjmom]

Many areas have tree ordinances that actually have the opposite of the desired outcome. My dad is a developer that likes to preserve trees whenever possible, and ordinances here require a tree survey as part of the permitting process. Any trees that are to be removed during construction must be identified in the survey and it is honestly fairly easy to get tree removal approved at that time; however, if a builder or developer has to apply to get trees removed later, the approval process is more arduous and costly (and less likely to be approved). What ends up happening is some developers or builders just clear the entire construction site so they don't take the chance of incurring delays, expenses, or denials later. Additionally, it is required for them to take measures to protect any trees remaining during construction and they can be cited for not doing so - my dad got in trouble one time because a subcontractor's crew kept taking down one of the barrier fences so they could park their trucks in the shade.

 

What is even more crazy is that, with all the restrictions during construction, once a private individual purchases the home, they can cut down whatever trees they want - no permit required.:001_huh:

[Carrie12345]

In most areas, I do think it's all about ease for developers. In a few (probably common for many NJ areas) it could be that the houses were built on farmland.

 

My development has rules against clear cutting, but people break the rule, and then they have to replant trees @@.

My house is surrounded by woods. I'd like to thin it out a bit, but it's very rocky, and would require a few thousand dollars in fill dirt to properly landscape. :glare:

[KungFuPanda]

My development wasn't clearcut when it was built 40 years ago. It's beautiful, and the trees offer privacy and protection from the elements HOWEVER, as you can see from my photo above, they can be dangerous. That was a healthy tree! The late summer storms brought lots of rain. The ground saturated, and that tree just tipped over. It crushed both of our upstairs bathrooms. I had JUST come out of the bathroom in the corner that you see. ALL of the other corners of the house are bedrooms! It's been a six month insurance ordeal to get rebuilt. We JUST moved back home. I am now eyeing the rest of the trees suspiciously and hoping I can gather the THOUSANDS it costs to cut some of them down before we have another incident.

 

I LIKE trees, I just do not want giant hardwoods within crushing distance of my house anymore. :glare: Also, it would be NICE to have enough sun to plant a small garden.

Edited April 6, 2012 by KungFuPanda

[Mommyof4ks]

My guess would be that in many cases, the developer/builder did the clear cutting for ease of construction purposes.

 

:iagree: That is very common. It is easier to work without the trees unless the house is to be built on several acres where there is plenty of room for workers to park and concrete trucks to get in.

[Tammyla]

 

:svengo: I'm so glad you all were safe...

 

That night-mare happens around here way too often. We've taken out one huge oak that was next to dead and I still felt sad... BUT... I would like to remove the beautiful birch that was damaged after an ice storm and the other one that the emarald-ash-bore is attacking.