"Mike LaMana" fake@MikeatHeartwoodConsultingdotnet wrote in message
...

Also, I would encourage folks to replace like-with-like. A thunder cloud
plum or weeping cherry is not a adequate replacement for a 90' oak or
tuliptree! Years of this sort of replacement leave behind streets that
look
like most of New York City. I fault landscapers as much as their customers
for not taking the steps needed to preserve urban forest integrity and
local -sense-of-place.

I'm not sure I agree with such a sweeping statement. There are many cases
where replacing like with like would be inappropriate. Land uses chance.
Surrounding flora changes. The original tree might have become unsuitable
for any variety of reasons. Or the tree could have been badly sited decades
before you bought your property and have now outgrown its location, eg. too
close to a structure etc. That said, we're talking about trees that
otherwise need to come down right? For example, I have a very large, very
old Beech in the backyard. The lower level of the trunk has become hollow
with evidence of significant rot. I'm going to have a consulting arbourist
come in and take a look at it just in case it is salvageable but I'm
expecting that it will have to come down. If it does, I am unlikely to
replace it with another large tree even though there's room. Forty years
ago a number of trees (maples, pines etc.) were added to the already fairly
abundant trees and the backyard is very shady. Our neighbours have swimming
pools. We have trees. ;-) So I'm thinking in terms of an understory tree
as a replacement. Something that flowers in the spring perhaps. More
importantly, something that casts that delicate dappled shade that so many
plants do well under. And most importantly something that will be tolerant
to part shade itself throughout its lifetime. Maybe a Serviceberry.

Jim