Removing a tree in DC costs a fortune...so it's not to save money. If you have crazy NIMBY neighbors, they can use the tree as a weapon to stop construction (see recent Washington business journal article on chain bridge road ...). Usually, trees are removed preventatively only if wacko neighbors are an issue.

If you like trees, then you have an arborist come out every few years to asses the trees and crown prune. It is not a big deal.

Our last home was a 1929 Tudor surrounded by oak and maple trees of the same age. It cost us a fortune in annual trimming and damage to our slate roof when branches fell, not to mention terror during high winds (our neighbor had one third of the house ripped off and would have been killed if in his family room, another friend WAS killed a year ago when a tree fell on her.) Our new buy has no big trees and I don't miss them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone is willing to spend 600k on the house that can possibly be smashed like a twig by a tree branch. By a tree, yes, by by the branch? Sounds like a " the three little pigs" type construction quality lol:

We're not talking a crepe myrtle branch. You think a house will be able to sustain a hit from a big branch that's 50+ yrs old (and could weigh a ton) and falls from 50+ feet? I hate to break it to you but there's no roof that can sustain such a hit, unless you live in a cave.

I live in a neighborhood of beautiful 100 year old houses and 100 year old trees. Only one person has ever cleared trees on their lot that I've seen. The last time a tree branch or tree fell on a house was, oh wait, never.

We still call the neighbor who cut the beautiful old trees on their property "the tree killers." Such a waste of effort and now they have no privacy and nor do many of their immediate neighbors. Dumb move.

Beautiful houses, but ugly people, in these neighborhoods.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone is willing to spend 600k on the house that can possibly be smashed like a twig by a tree branch. By a tree, yes, by by the branch? Sounds like a " the three little pigs" type construction quality lol:

We're not talking a crepe myrtle branch. You think a house will be able to sustain a hit from a big branch that's 50+ yrs old (and could weigh a ton) and falls from 50+ feet? I hate to break it to you but there's no roof that can sustain such a hit, unless you live in a cave.

I live in a neighborhood of beautiful 100 year old houses and 100 year old trees. Only one person has ever cleared trees on their lot that I've seen. The last time a tree branch or tree fell on a house was, oh wait, never.

We still call the neighbor who cut the beautiful old trees on their property "the tree killers." Such a waste of effort and now they have no privacy and nor do many of their immediate neighbors. Dumb move.

Trust me, I would have preferred to save the thousands of dollars on the arborist, taking down the old trees, and to plant new trees, but the county (Arlington) requires it. So unless this is a vent about new construction...

Anonymous wrote:Someone is willing to spend 600k on the house that can possibly be smashed like a twig by a tree branch. By a tree, yes, by by the branch? Sounds like a " the three little pigs" type construction quality lol:

We're not talking a crepe myrtle branch. You think a house will be able to sustain a hit from a big branch that's 50+ yrs old (and could weigh a ton) and falls from 50+ feet? I hate to break it to you but there's no roof that can sustain such a hit, unless you live in a cave.

Anonymous wrote:This is what insurance is for

What a moron. I have insurance, but only a moron would rely on insurance for something that they can readily avoid. Talk about a giant headache not to mention the risk of someone dying or getting injured.

God, lots of idiots with swagger who don't know what the hell they are talking about.

Trees often die when you build a house near them. Plain and simple. They may take a few years, linger, but they will be weak and they may pose a threat to your house even in this state. Even the ones that are decently far away from your house are not safe from this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well I mean I know why they prefer it, to make construction easier, but why do owners buyin tear-downs ask them to do this and why do people buying new houses buy them when the lots have been cleared? They look horrible. As many mature trees as possible should be left. I've been watching a new house buying built off old dominion right past balls hill road and the builders cut every single tree off the lot before they started building. Insane!

I hate to break it to the tree huggers, but simply put, trees are a risk. I live in a neighborhood with plenty of "mature trees" and I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a house where branches are over the house. If you've been in this area for any period of time you've undoubtedly seen houses get smashed like twigs from a large tree or branches falling down. Let's see, you're going to spend $600k building a house and not remove a tree that's too close to your house? That's called dumb. I like big trees, I just think they have no place close to the house. Unfortunately these days lot sizes keep shrinking and houses get larger so there's a lack of space for big/nice trees. It is what it is..

Someone is willing to spend 600k on the house that can possibly be smashed like a twig by a tree branch. By a tree, yes, by by the branch? Sounds like a " the three little pigs" type construction quality lol:

It takes decades to grow a mature tree, it's ridiculous how people cut them down without second thought. Leaning, unhealthy - sure, but healthy 70-100+ years beauties?? In my book it's a crime. I hope it's not the same people who complaint about air quality, noise, and, ultimately, climate changelol:

Currently I am pretty tense with my neighbor who bought her house two years ago, and did not notice two poplar tulips planted on my front lawn in 1948 (I am not joking). Lots are not that huge, you can't help by notice large trees on almost every lawn. Nor did she notice two oaks planted the same year on her next door neighbors' lawn. She wants them down, too, or I and the oak trees owner should be cleaning "our mess" off her lawn (leafs, branches, etc.). I installed cameras pointed at trees, because I question her sanity, and someone suggested to me to nominate my trees as a landmark trees, and I will do it in April. So will my neighbor.
Just a tip for people in the same situation.

Maryland actually has a good tree policy and while it seems short sighted to take down these mature trees the water retention policies PP referenced above are much better for the environment than the old rules and better than what Virginia requires from both homeowners AND new builds. The sad thing is that homeowners, once they buy these homes, are putting in trees that aren't adding to the cooling canopy that will help everyone. Flowering trees are great but the oaks, maples, and other significant trees are an investment many aren't making. Montgomery County offers an great FREE tree planting program https://mygreenmontgomery.org/project/plant-a-tree/
We just had 5 trees planted in our yard - and they weren't the 'saplings' you see at Arbor Day events - they were really big trees and they plant and mulch them. We got to pick the tree variety and location. There is a separate program for planting in the right of way that costs something but at a big discount. Do yourself a favor and get these free trees.

Anonymous wrote:Maryland sounds awful.

It is. I moved to VA, and I will never go back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well I mean I know why they prefer it, to make construction easier, but why do owners buyin tear-downs ask them to do this and why do people buying new houses buy them when the lots have been cleared? They look horrible. As many mature trees as possible should be left. I've been watching a new house buying built off old dominion right past balls hill road and the builders cut every single tree off the lot before they started building. Insane!

I hate to break it to the tree huggers, but simply put, trees are a risk. I live in a neighborhood with plenty of "mature trees" and I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a house where branches are over the house. If you've been in this area for any period of time you've undoubtedly seen houses get smashed like twigs from a large tree or branches falling down. Let's see, you're going to spend $600k building a house and not remove a tree that's too close to your house? That's called dumb. I like big trees, I just think they have no place close to the house. Unfortunately these days lot sizes keep shrinking and houses get larger so there's a lack of space for big/nice trees. It is what it is..

This is what insurance is for

Because it makes construction easier, because a house for sale looks better to most people if it has lots of open space around it so you can see it from all sides, because eliminate the possibility of an old tree dying soon after the construction disturbance. Although some homebuyers like the old trees, it seems that many prefer an open lot.

We are clearing all the trees from our house (built in the 1980s) because the trees are either too close to the house and huge or old and poor looking. I will be replanting trees and bushes.