Worrying About and Caring For Your Trees
April 15, 2009 | 11:31 amA concerned Left Wing writes in…
I, personally, am going to be cutting down a gigantic oak tree in my backyard because the root systems are so damaged from the drought, that it is not worth my families safety to leave a gorgeous but potentially lethal tree in my backyard.
Most of us find ourselves in similar situations around Decatur. Pre-WWII developers didn’t subscribe to the clear cut methodology so often employed these days. Therefore, large, ancient oaks, maples and pine stretch mightily over our rooftops, shading us from intense summer heat.
But of course there’s another aspect of trees that turns people’s awe to nervousness: they eventually fall down.
We all certainly saw this in full force on Monday.
If you have a confirmed case of a damaged or dying tree, you should have it removed. But even if your trees are healthy, you should still show them the same amount of attention and care. This Trees Atlanta page, “How to Protect Trees in Your Yard“, is a good place to start to learn about routine care and maintenance. Also the “Storms – Don’t Panic” page can be useful if you’re looking for a list of Trees Atlanta-recommended arborists.
Oh and BTW, to the tree service company that left a business card on my mailbox yesterday: very classy.
“Pre-WWII developers didn’t subscribe to the clear cut methodology so often employed these days.” i hate to tell you this, but pre-WWII developers were just as ruthless—they just had the advantage that all the trees had already been cut down—early images of Inman Park and Ansley Park, e.g., look little different than today’s subdivisions built in old cow pastures.
You are kinda right…take a look at this picture from Atlanta Time Machine.
a good example of how large a tree can grow in 50 odd years (assuming the first picture was taken around 1950 and the modern one was 04).
http://www.atlantatimemachine.com/houses_apts/ardmore1853.htm
looking at it I would assume it was there a 100!…or at least left over from the developer not cutting it down, which may still be the case. But at the size in the old picture (very small tree in the foreground), there’s no reason not to assume it was planted by the owner.
anyway, I’m not saying they did or didnt clear cut back then, just pointing out how fast and large some of these oaks get after a half a century (not a lot of time in the whole scheme of things)
Something to think about next time you plant an oak tree in your yard…the next owner might be shaded out!
another good example of how large a tree can grow in 50 odd years….
http://www.atlantatimemachine.com/houses_apts/birch1058.htm
like I said, I’m not saying they did or didnt clear cut back then…just showing how large a tree can grow in a short amount of time.
And there are examples of threes being saved in post WWII development. The homes along East Ponce are all 50′s and 60′s era where the trees were not removed during development.
A lot of it comes down to density…those are huge lots so it was probably easier for the developer to leave the trees.
look how clear McLendon was in 1907!
http://www.atlantatimemachine.com/houses_apts/mclendon1266.htm
Pre-war is just a convenient classification. You are right that many early post-war homes were also built within the landscape, instead of on top of it. But by the 60s-70s, clear cutting became much more necessary with the advent of building portions of the house off-site. You need room to bring that stuff in.
And as Scott said earlier, it doesn’t mean that the developer didn’t cut down trees pre-war, just that they didn’t cut EVERYTHING down.
As for your McLendon pic, that looks like it was built in an existing field, no?
That said, the original criticism of my comment about old trees reaching over roofs has merit. Most of those trees, so close to the house probably were planted when the house went up. But sorry, clear-cutting as we know it today, did not exist in 1940.
The tree in our front yard is a water oak and is easily 10 feet in diameter and 4 stories high. It would take out any of the six houses next to and across from us if it fell in any direction. It was planted when the house was built in the early 1940′s. We thought for sure it was at least 100 years old, and were surprised when our neighbor who grew up in her house told us that the family who first owned our house planted the tree when they moved in.
That’s just the point i’m making, not that we didnt clear cut 60 years ago, I know we didnt do that like we do today.
I’m just trying to point out that a lot of our huge trees may have been planted by the original owner, they may not have been some majestic tree saved by the builder.
the only reason I showed the Mclendon pic was to show how big trees get in in that, today, very wooded area.
Where would one go to find old pictures of our house?…or just Decatur for that matter?
I’ve found some neat old aerials of Decatur from as early as 1940 on line (really interesting-sad-to see how much of the city has been blown out), but not many ground level pictures…
Hey. Does anyone have any tree removal company recommendations? Preferably a company that is familiar with how insurance claims work. I’ve been to the Trees Atlanta site. But, I didn’t find any removal companies listed. Just tree-health inspecting arborists. I have filed an insurance claim ($1000 deductible, btw) and we are still waiting for the adjuster to come and inspect.
I’ve been told I can remove the tree in the meantime to prevent any further damage. It’s a 100+ foot maple from our neighbors yard. The middle of it is splitting our beautiful holly tree and the top is sitting on the corner of our damaged roof. Any advice would be most appreciated.
You’re talking about developing former agricultural land, which is not what DM’s referring to. He’s right. Prior to WWII was the height of Olmsteadian garden planning, where the contours of the land were embraced and a naturalistic landscape — either retained or created — was the principal source of value.
Production building as we know it today didn’t exist. It was far more common for a larger developer to plan and plat the land, then sell individual plots one or a couple at a time. This pace allowed the choosing of more appropriate home plans in relation to individual lots and, because it was often the ultimate homeowner driving the process, a more considered approach to existing trees. Look at the photo Newbie posts below, which is likely from the 40s. Even though the lot itself was cleared, look at the retained trees along the side and rear boundaries. That’s far more rare in today’s suburbs.
Of course, if the land was previously an existing farm, that a whole ‘nother story.
No doubt, Newbie. I’m in the same boat as Superfly, with a gargantuan oak in the front yard that I thought for sure was in the 100-year range. Then I saw a picture of the house from, I think, the late 30s and it hadn’t even been planted yet.
I hope that means it’ll be with us for a while…
We had ours inspected last year by Arborguard, and they told us (for free) that it was very healthy. Then they told us what we could do to keep it healthy–for several thousand dollars. Unfortunately we can’t afford to do what they told us, at least right now, so let’s hope Mother Nature takes care of it for us.
I went to the DeKalb archives at the old Courthouse. A very kind woman managed to track down an old newspaper real estate spread that included a picture of my house from when it changed hands in the 30s.