Larry Caldwell wrote in message t...
In article ,
writes:

I can't speak to British Columbia. But a neighbor two blocks from my
home in Portland, Oregon just got done cutting down a 100-foot S.s.
after he had concerns the tree might blow over onto his and others
homes. The interesting thing to me is that this tree was nearly 4 feet
in diameter at the base, but had been growing for less than 60 years.
In other words, it had a relatively high concentration of wood stored
in the bole. (And I never did get to check for truffles associated
with the tree! )

The sequoia is a rapid growing tree and tends to be very pyramidal unless
the trunk is forced to elongate by competition. I have seen a 50 year
old sequoia that was 6' dbh, growing in an open lawn. It was
considerably less than 100' tall.

This one used to be in the front lawn. Of course, it also had some
80-foot D-fir in the back bordering the back property as well as
off-street parking space. Maybe that's why the owners chose to cut
_everything_ down: reducing the danger of falling limbs falling on a
schoolyard next door, or trees falling and damaging homes. The redwood
in front had already created a root mound that may well have been
cracking the foundation of the house.

It's odd. Another neighbor also has a redwood, but located even closer
to his home. You'd never know it was a redwood though, to look at it:
less than 15 feet tall, and constantly pruned and shaped into a tight
shrubby growth. I don't know. Maybe that neighbor had the right idea.
Planting a redwood too close to your home (read within 60 feet) during
this century may not be such a good idea.

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com